BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:07 PM

My God, the sanctimonious are really crawling out of the woodwork in this thread. Christ knows what these smug bastards' own kids are like, poor little sods. We had our two when we were on our uppers, but we made it in the end, same child benefit as every millionaire got, struggling towards our aspirations and succeeding in the end. Why, who would have known. Maybe I should have shed the courage early on and tied a knot in it. I was born into poverty and lived in a slum for the first ten years of my life. Maybe I shouldn't even be here - should we have a poll? I can't believe that there are people around in the 21st century who still think that your right to have children is proportional to the success you achieve in this capitalistic world. I went to school with kids who would never have been born according to the Rule Of Teribus. Some of them are priests or professors or teachers or doctors and a good few are still mates of mine. Go bloody figure, Billyboy. I'd pick them over bigots like you any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:36 PM

From: SPB-Cooperator - PM
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:54 PM

"SPB-Cooperator ever heard of people behaving responsibly? Have you got some marked objection to that? ANYONE who has bigger families than they can support quite frankly can be legitimately labelled as "freeloaders" as they have those families in the full expectation that the rest of us have to pay for them, and that any shortfall is "society's" fault.
Anyone making the conscious decision to have a family must do so in such a way as to always have their children's best interests at heart, not secure a living off child support - you get child support/allowance for two children then all after that are your own responsibility. There again personal responsibility is something that "socialists" do not accept - they never have done. "

You are making assumptions that all pregnancies are planned,

You're not reading what has been written (and you're responding to).
The first line in bold makes it clear that the discussion is not about those having 'unexpected' children. Although, once a woman has two children I would expect her to have worked out what the cause was!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:54 PM

"SPB-Cooperator ever heard of people behaving responsibly? Have you got some marked objection to that? ANYONE who has bigger families than they can support quite frankly can be legitimately labelled as "freeloaders" as they have those families in the full expectation that the rest of us have to pay for them, and that any shortfall is "society's" fault.

Anyone making the conscious decision to have a family must do so in such a way as to always have their children's best interests at heart, not secure a living off child support - you get child support/allowance for two children then all after that are your own responsibility. There again personal responsibility is something that "socialists" do not accept - they never have done. "

You are making assumptions that all pregnancies are planned, and the implication of your post that those below a certain income are only getting pregnant to sponge of the stet is reprehensible. Every circumstance is different, it could be through failed contraception, it could be because a partner has forced himself on his wife when he was drunk, it could be complacency that thinking being of a certain age reduces the likelihood of conception.

Rees Mogg is on one hand against those who for example have their 'complete family' - mnaybe teen children, maybe in their forties, and do not feel able to bring up another child - a hard decision to make - and on the other hand withdrawing support form society. So what would you have done to the children who are surplus to societies requirements then????

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:20 PM

"Who would be left?"
Those who confess their sins and become hypocrites like the rest of you
That's their get out of jail free card
I suppose it's a step up from their old method of torturing a confession out of sinners then burning them alive at the stake before they can recant
Sorry keith - the church's own statement bungs yoour piteous excuses right up your holy jaxi, I'm afraid.
And don't forget that this was all being put into practice by a church heiorarch of supposed celibate old men who forbade contraception and whose clerics were helping themselves to children when the fancy took than
What a bunch eh?
Do you care to explain the discrpency of defending unborn foetuses, refusing abortions to raped 11 year olds, allowing women to die in pain rather than carrying out life-saving operations, watching children pulled deead out of the sea and yet still opposing refugees, claiming "thou shalt not kill" meant something else and supporting the WW1 bloodbath
No?
Thought not, especially as you were in to all these right up to your Christian neck
The "viciousness" was the spiritual blackmail that went into all this hypocrisy
Sleep well, and don't forget to say your prayers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG - PM
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:06 AM
Or women of a certain age can retire as 65 but those born a day later they have to wait to 67? Laws introduce boundaries, and the exact point of that boundary is a balance of many competing interests;

Sorry, that's not one I'm aware of. A one day difference in date of birth means a two year difference in retirement/pension date?
Can you point to any guidance which substantiates that illogical situation?

Cheers
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 01:27 PM

Sounds sensible to me Tunesmith,
It's started to happen in Ireland but it took a great sacrifice on the part of children and "fallen" women to arrive at that conclusion
Despite opposition, there ore now statues in memory of 'The Magdalene girls'
Thye have yet to get round to the victims of Clerical abuse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 01:25 PM

Jim,
So youu can be a homoosexual but you burn in hell if you follow your natural instincts

No. They see sex outside marriage as sinful gay or straight, but do not condemn us all to hell for it. Who would be left?

Steve,
The truth is that the Church is viciously opposed to gay people exercising their human right to have sex with whoever they want

No. It is opposed to sex outside marriage gay or straight, and where does "vicious" come into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Tunesmith
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 01:12 PM

The sensible, sane course of action would be to bar any believers of religion from high - or any - political positions based on the fact that would be dangerously gullible and open to any wild, unverified beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:57 PM

Seems this argument is pretty well over when (this time deliberate) typos and non-responses aer te order of the day
You have your hypocritical behaviour before you
Hardly worth putting in your glorification of WW1
'Course we're getting slaughtered aka "I can't fight but I can still spit"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:55 PM

You don't have to be the Brain of Britain to see the outcome of any thread this bunch of childish, OCD fuckwits infest.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:52 PM

I could have put that point better, I admit. I don't think anyone here really thought I meant that gay men should be able to rampantly go around, tackle-out, having the non-consensual pick of the flock. I suppose that anyone desperate enough to jump on that inelegant sentence in order to make a Big Thing of it in that manner must be pretty bereft of ideas.

And if you want to quote me, do just that is my advice. We can all read and we don't need your "helpful" bolds, capitals and italics, none of which were in my sentence. You may insult me all you like, but you don't need to insult everyone else's intelligence as well. Or maybe you think you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:31 PM

"You [ate] back to [you] [pedantic] typo mode - you know damn well he was not suggesting that homosexual men should be allowed to [sake] [satisfaction] from whoever [that] choose
Back to typos"

Priceless Jom, simply priceless.

Continue the countdown BWM your pals are getting slaughtered once again, and no doubt they are frantically PM-ing mods to kill the thread before they are embarrassed even further.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:29 PM

He certainly has his finger on the pulse of the way this thread is going.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:16 PM

Has BWM got his finger on the nuclear button :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 11:48 AM

Four...
Three...
Two...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 11:23 AM

"Jom, let Shaw speak for himself."
This is a publc forum - I will intervene when I see fit
If you're not happy with that, go PM each other
You ate back to you pedentic typo mode - you know damn well he was not suggesting that homosexual men should be allowed to sake satisfacion from whoever that choose
Back to typos and "Jom" again - a handy guide for how this argument is going - beats the weather forcast any ady!
I'm just contemplating whether to dig up the numerous threads were you
valiant foetus defenders put in so much efforts describing a slaughter for Empire which wiped out generations of young men as "a well conducted war"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 11:16 AM

Please don't be so stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 11:03 AM

Jim Carroll - 09 Sep 17 - 10:48 AM

"Ehmmm Shaw, you pillock, ""
That is not what Steve meant and you know it

Jom, let Shaw speak for himself.

"You would reserve your own right to have or not sex with whoever you choose"

Not what Shaw said at all was it? He stated - "gay people exercising THEIR HUMAN RIGHT to have sex with whoever THEY want - In that statement the object of THEIR desires, does not appear to have a choice they must comply or deny some gay person THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS - Utterly fuckin' ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:58 AM

Sorry about the cross posting that was in response to MRT 8:13am

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:54 AM

"If child support/child allowance was withdrawn tomorrow you would not hear one squeak out of Jacob Rees-Mogg or his wife"

1) Because they've got inherited money dripping from their arses.

2) How the hell can you know this? Utter bollocks. You're a pleb like the rest of us Mr. T, just a servile, unquestioning one.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:54 AM

It was a stupid post not worth a reply, Jim. It's what he does. I'm perfectly happy that everyone else reading it would get the point. Maybe he thinks all gay people are lascivious predators who simply must have sex with anyone they want to, consent or no. There are people around who think that. Maybe he's one of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:52 AM

Well said Teribus, We had four children including twins and I worked my bloody socks off to provide for them, sometimes working till midnight in the muck, shit and cold. I considered myself responsible for my family....we only intended to have two, but It did not work out that way, we were lucky that all were born hale and hearty.
I have never been unemployed, and I've had some jobs that have left physical effects, breaks hernias scars....the works.
But if there is a God he's been good to me.

Steve...Mr Rees Mogg made it abundantly clear that his expressed views were personal and that he would never attempt to impose them on the country in any capacity.
Don't tell me what I may or may not post here, admin make the rules not you. You and your creepy friends have avoided every issue that this thread has provoked.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:50 AM

Jacob Rees-Mogg has six children Shaw. If child support/child allowance was withdrawn tomorrow you would not hear one squeak out of Jacob Rees-Mogg or his wife. You would out of those parents of families who could field a rugby team on the basis of the State benefits they receive.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has six children Shaw, and they will not cost the taxpayer a single penny with regard to their education and upbringing. Jacob Rees-Mogg and his wife can have as many children as they wish because they are responsible and sensible enough to provide for their children.

If you cannot provide for and look after children Shaw then you shouldn't effin' well have them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:48 AM

"Ehmmm Shaw, you pillock, ""
That is not what Steve meant and you know it
You would reserve your own right to have or not sex with whoever you choose but you w=and your ilk would refuse that right to a significant percentage of the world's population
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:45 AM

"Getting back to the abortion issue, is their really anyone who does Not believe that live begins at conception? "
Is there really anybody who wishes a return to the archaic laws of forbidden termination and chemical castration
These are now fully accepted - we reach compromises on the question of whether we want families or not for all sorts of reasons - overpopulation, personal situations, the fact that sex is not and has never been solely for procreation, rape, incest.... millions of reasons
How about the morality of forcing a raped 11 year old child to endure a pregnancy for the sake of not destroying an unborn fetus - in one case the victim had also acquired two sexually- transmitted diseases - humanity or barbarism?
Several years ago a patient at Galway Hospital died after being refused a life-saving operation "because Ireland is a Catholic country", she was told
Humanity or barbarism?
If human life is so precious, why would you people rather watch dead children being pulled out of the sea rather than granting them asylum?
Why do you Pro-lifers invariably support the manufacture use and sale for profit of weapons capable of killing and maiming dozens, even thousand people at one go?
I find very little pacifism or even humanity when it comes to that taking of life in these cases.
But when it comes to the edicts of mother church.... that then becomes a different matter.
Even then, that becomes very much a movable feast
I remember a bunch of you desperately claiming that the Christian edict "though shalt not kill" didn't really mean what it said.
Your hypocrisy is utterly astounding to me, as is your lack of simple common sense and humanity
Let Jacob Rees Mogg be Proime Minister - that will put paid to The Tory Pary once and for all, and good riddance to bad rubbish
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:43 AM

This is priceless:

" The truth is that the Church is viciously opposed to gay people exercising their human right to have sex with whoever they want." _ Steve Shaw

Ehmmm Shaw, you pillock, " The truth is that I am viciously opposed to gay people exercising their human right to have sex with whoever they want." - If that "whoever they want happens to be me. In your case probably you and your Mrs might think differently. But just for clarification just let us all know for certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:40 AM

So what you're saying, Teribus, that it's fine for the likes of Rees-Mogg to have as many kids as they want, swelling the population of this overcrowded planet with impunity, whereas poor people had better have few if any kids. Am I reading you correctly there?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:35 AM

"When he attempts to inmpose those views on others, that becomes a different matter" - Jim Carroll

When has he attempted to impose those views on others Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:32 AM

SPB-Cooperator - 09 Sep 17 - 08:13 AM

"Rees-Moog's anti-abortion views,and his party's vilification of people on low incomes having bigger families than they can afford' and sanctioning 'surplus' children just show him to be a hypocrite."

SPB-Cooperator ever heard of people behaving responsibly? Have you got some marked objection to that? ANYONE who has bigger families than they can support quite frankly can be legitimately labelled as "freeloaders" as they have those families in the full expectation that the rest of us have to pay for them, and that any shortfall is "society's" fault.

Anyone making the conscious decision to have a family must do so in such a way as to always have their children's best interests at heart, not secure a living off child support - you get child support/allowance for two children then all after that are your own responsibility. There again personal responsibility is something that "socialists" do not accept - they never have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:28 AM

"Getting back to the abortion issue, is their really anyone who does Not believe that live begins at conception? That is surely not a religious tenet, but a biological one.
If we accept that fact, every abortion is in reality the destruction of an innocent human being.
Is there really anyone who thinks that the power of life or death of an unborn child should be left in all cases solely to the mother?"

This post doesn't belong here. There is no point whatsoever on a forum like this trying argue for the exact beginning of a life. And the answer to the last misogynistically-posed question is yes, and she deserves the very best neutral support in making the decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:27 AM

I'm reading a book named "The Burning Time" by Virginia Rounding which demonstrates vividly how the churches sought to control public attitudes and public behavior to the extent that people who disagreed with the church were burnt to death. Unsurprisingly the criteria of whether you were judged to be heretical changed over a very short period. As little as six years between 1532 and 1538.

I somehow feel that the likes of Rees-Mogg would be quite content with a return to that era.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:18 AM

Keith has repeatedly tried to claim that the Church regards sex outside marriage for everybody, gay or straight, as equivalently sinful. What he mischievously and disingenuously leaves out of the equation is that the Church does not recognise gay marriage and is therefore condemning all homosexual people to a celibate life. He then claims that the Church is being somehow accommodating to homosexual people. You really couldn't make this up. The truth is that the Church is viciously opposed to gay people exercising their human right to have sex with whoever they want. There is nothing warm and cuddly about it. On top of that, he is defending "sincerely-held views" held by people in an organisation that attempts to enforce those views. If you hold the "sincerely-held view" thst gay marriage is wrong, then it's my sincerely-held view that you need to keep it to yourself, shut up about it and accept, for chrissake, that two gay people getting married hurts neither you, them nor anyone else in the slightest way.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 09:35 AM

Getting back to the abortion issue, is their really anyone who does Not believe that live begins at conception? That is surely not a religious tenet, but a biological one.
If we accept that fact, every abortion is in reality the destruction of an innocent human being.
Is there really anyone who thinks that the power of life or death of an unborn child should be left in all cases solely to the mother?
I think it was DMcG who mentioned "Red lines"(excuse me if I am wrong "D"), but red lines seem to be the ultimate idiocy when dealing with human life. As I said already, why should a 23 week old foetus be regarded as disposable and a 24 week old protected by law?
Why should a full term child be killed because of disablement?

All hugely controversial issues.......not a "given" as in the doctrine of "liberalism"

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 09:22 AM

So youu can be a homoosexual but you burn in hell if you follow your natural instincts
Makes sense to me alongside all the other mumbo jumbo of your claimed religion Keith
Any intolerance comes from those who insist that such things are wrong and a sin when they are now written into British law - the church having precedence over the national judicial process - dangerous ground
I have no objection to Moggie choosing not to have an abortion or indulge in homosexual acts - his business alone
When he attempts to inmpose those views on others, that becomes a different matter
When the church decides that those who follow their natural instincts or takes steps to save the lives or well-being of women will burn in hell, that becomes spiritual blackmail
The facts that these rights are written into British law makes someone like Mogg totally unsuitable to lead Britain politically
You people prate enough about those of other religions who follow or advocate practices that you don't agree with, but when it comes to your own particular branch of fundamentalism - "crown 'em king'
Family planning and sexual choice are had-fought-for rights in our society - electing someone who opposes the rights of the majority of the population of britain is not fit to captain a rowing boat across Newsham Park lake, never mind lead a country.
You are defending fundamentalist views that you oppose for other communities
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 09:20 AM

The whole point of this thread was to illustrate the anomaly between the reception by the media of conservative social views pertaining to Catholicism.....and their reception of the tenets of Islam regarding abortion and homosexuality.
To say that people should be put to death or imprisoned because to their sexual behaviour is surely "hateful" no matter how unhealthy it may be?

The media has brainwashed a majority of the public into supporting idiocy....parliament which contains a large over representation of homosexuals have turned that idiocy into law.
The Christian religion is now a lone voice calling for sensible social values Mr RM is supporting that voice, perhaps his quiet reasoning will garner a few converts, but I fear that like S@G things have fallen too low to be resurrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 08:38 AM

Jim, the Catholic Church does not yet accept same sex marriage, but otherwise does not oppose homosexuality specifically, only sex outside marriage straight or gay.
Yours statements on that were wrong Jim.
"being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

Steve and Jim, we agree on same sex marriage and abortion.
The only difference is your intolerance of anyone with different views, and your misrepresentation of the Catholic Church's view of homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 08:19 AM

His alleged statement that 'people educated in state-schools are as thick as pot-plants' should, by rights, ensure he isn't re-elected at the next GE. Arrogant wank-puffin.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 08:13 AM

Rees-Moog's anti-abortion views,and his party's vilification of people on low incomes having bigger families than they can afford' and sanctioning 'surplus' children just show him to be a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 07:53 AM

You have the bell book and candle position of the Catholic Church in black and white -you also have Jarogs position on these tow issues - they coincide, which is precisely what this discussion is about
The OP asked whether such views make Moggie a fit person to lead Britain - not your 'claimed' Christianity.
I'm sure some of the world's greatest dictators possessed "sincerely held views"
Let's leave it there for the sake of the debate eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:59 AM

Jim, I am a Christian and like all the other Christians I know am pro choice and pro same sex marriage.

Many people, Christian or not, disagree on one or both of those.
I accept that such views are sincerely held and they are entitled to hold them, and even entitled to articulate them as RM did when asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:57 AM

"Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner."
CATHOLIC RULING on HOMOSEXUALITY - you can feel it but you can't act on it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:53 AM

Wiki on Catholicism,
" homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity", and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided"[35] "The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:53 AM

Can we not make this another Keith versus the world thread
Mogg has said what he said and everybody knows what fund=mentalist Christianity stands for regarding homosexuality and pregnancy termination -
the fact that the more pragmatic members of the church have been dragged kicking and screaming int the twentieth century (just), over these issues is immaterial - Mogg and his archaic ilk are fundamentalists
Let's leave it at that and not allow one regular cuckoo spoil a summer
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:52 AM

Wiki on Catholicism,
" homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity", and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided"[35] "The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:39 AM

I am not Catholic or homophobic and I believe in same sex marriage, so how am I treading on thin ice.

Jim says that Catholicism promises hell for homosexuals.
Is he right or wrong?

Does Catholicism say gay sex outside marriage is worse than straight sex outside marriage?

Many people religious or not oppose same sex marriage, including some gay people. We might disagree with them but it is a legitimate and widely held view. Until recent years it was a universally held view.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:26 AM

The debate has nothing to do with sex outside marriage. It is to do with discrimination against homosexual people. Please do not try to blur that distinction. You are treading on thin ice.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:23 AM

A "mogg" of pooves, or a "mogg" of abortions!!!!!

Or even a "mogg" of catholics!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:22 AM

But this time he's in severe danger of branding himself homophobic. I suggest he treads carefully.

No need to tread carefully. I am not.
Not having been a Catholic myself I will not challenge what you assert.

My understanding was that sex outside marriage is held to be wrong, hetero or homo, even though most are guilty of it.

Is Jim right that it will get you to hell, but only if same sex?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:07 AM

Yes he is, Dave. But this time he's in severe danger of branding himself homophobic. I suggest he treads carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:05 AM

That is not true, Keith. Heterosexuality, whether within or outside marriage, is not regarded as "an objective disorder ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil." The only common position is that Catholicism regards acting on it outside marriage as sinful, which is an entirely separate issue. You can't get away with ignoring that fundamental distinction. You appear to be defending what amounts to the institutional homophobia of the Catholic Church, which attempts to conceal its intolerance of homosexuality under a mass of faux-rational doctrinal verbiage.