Traditional marriage. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Traditional marriage.


Gunhaver
05-11-2012, 21:37
Traditional. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://www.upworthy.com/the-top-8-ways-to-be-traditionally-married-according-to-the-bible?g=2&c=la2

Brucev
05-12-2012, 06:13
Some people are easily amused.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 07:19
Easily confused is more like it.

If gay marriage threatened traditional marriage, its already too late. Some states and countries already have gay marriages.

Yet marriage for straight people still stands.

My advice to people afraid of gay marriage is to just get your wife to shave her back once in a while, and nobody will ever mistake your marriage for a gay one once the gay ones are legal. :rofl::rofl:

Marriage is between the people involved, has no effect on the general population.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 08:14
How about polygamy, polyandry, incest, and beastiality? I mean that is between the group and not society (polygamy and polyandry), incest is just within the family unit, and beastality is just between a person and their particular animal.

What about the people who have a fetish for the inanimate, like the woman who married a wall she was attracted to. That was just between her and the wall.

So, if you advocate gay marriage, surely you can't deny everyone else, right?

ithaca_deerslayer
05-12-2012, 08:33
How about polygamy, polyandry, incest, and beastiality? I mean that is between the group and not society (polygamy and polyandry), incest is just within the family unit, and beastality is just between a person and their particular animal.

What about the people who have a fetish for the inanimate, like the woman who married a wall she was attracted to. That was just between her and the wall.

So, if you advocate gay marriage, surely you can't deny everyone else, right?

I agree with you.

A marriage is between a man and a woman. If between others, it can be called a civil union.

I have gay friends and in my opinion they have no idea what a marriage is. Same sex civil unions match the same genders, same world views, same sex drives, same sex parts, same types of feelings, same biological changes, and all sorts of similar stuff. It is all homogeous. That is not a marriage.

A marriage is the bringing together of two different things, such as a man and a woman. Now that is something special.

Two fishing buddies getting together and deciding they want to have sex and live together does not impress me at all. :rofl:

HexHead
05-12-2012, 09:02
The definition of marriage should include "the ability to procreate". End of discussion.

camelotkid
05-12-2012, 09:22
The definition of marriage should include "the ability to procreate". End of discussion.
YEAH! because I am sick and tired of seeing senior citizens marry:rofl:

Phaze5ive
05-12-2012, 09:38
How about polygamy, polyandry, incest, and beastiality? I mean that is between the group and not society (polygamy and polyandry), incest is just within the family unit, and beastality is just between a person and their particular animal.

What about the people who have a fetish for the inanimate, like the woman who married a wall she was attracted to. That was just between her and the wall.

So, if you advocate gay marriage, surely you can't deny everyone else, right?
Polygamy is not only accepted in certain areas, but it's now profitable also. There are reality tv shows about the subject, the most famous being 'Sister Wives'. Frankly, I have now problems with it. If people choose to engage in that kind of behavior, how does it hurt anyone else? It's not like traditionally married couples don't cheat on their spouses.

Incest is illegal because there's a real and potential threat to the offspring.

Beastiality? How does one prove consent from an animal?

Sent from my phoneeeeeeeee

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 09:42
Polygamy is not only accepted in certain areas, but it's now profitable also. There are reality tv shows about the subject, the most famous being 'Sister Wives'. Frankly, I have now problems with it. If people choose to engage in that kind of behavior, how does it hurt anyone else? It's not like traditionally married couples don't cheat on their spouses.

Incest is illegal because there's a real and potential threat to the offspring.

Beastiality? How does one prove consent from an animal?

Sent from my phoneeeeeeeee

Actually, polygamy is illegal in the United States and is actually a crime. There is a fifty fifty change on first cousins; but, illegal and a crime. I have seen Atheists here declare the vast intelligence and empathy of Apes; but, again illegal and a crime.

My point, once you open pandora's box declaring that no one has the right to judge relationships, then you don't have the right to judge anyone and their particular choices.

If there is a moral absolute, then we have common ground. If there is simply moral pluralism, you have no objection.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 11:49
Actually, polygamy is illegal in the United States and is acttually a crime. There is a fifty fifty change on first cousins; but, illegal and a crime. I have seen Atheists here declare the vast intelligence and empathy of Apes; but, again illegal and a crime.

My point, once you open pandora's box declaring that no one has the right to judge relationships, then you don't have the right to judge anyone and their particular choices.

If there is a moral absolute, then we have common ground. If there is simply moral pluralism, you have no objection.

Funny how people arguing for common ground always insist THEIR ground should be the common one.

If we suggest that we settle on common ground that INCLUDES gay marriage being allowed, suddenly they lose interest in all this agreement and harmony.


Freedom is a real bear once you realize you don't have the right to impose your religious sensibilities on other people and they start making choices that don't affect you, but you still don't like.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 12:28
Funny how people arguing for common ground always insist THEIR ground should be the common one.

If we suggest that we settle on common ground that INCLUDES gay marriage being allowed, suddenly they lose interest in all this agreement and harmony.


Freedom is a real bear once you realize you don't have the right to impose your religious sensibilities on other people and they start making choices that don't affect you, but you still don't like.

Randy

So, you endorse polygamy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality as acceptable.

AlexHassin
05-12-2012, 12:44
YEAH! because I am sick and tired of seeing senior citizens marry:rofl:
and the infertil

Alizard
05-12-2012, 13:52
How about polygamy, polyandry, incest, and beastiality?///
So, if you advocate gay marriage, surely you can't deny everyone else, right?It's posts like this that make me think there is no hope. My wife reminds me the only hope is when the generation of people who think like you die off, we might be able to have one that allows all people the same basic rights.

If you (as you did in your post) equate a consenting relationship between two gay adults as the same as incest where an adult molests and victimizes a child...... there probably is no hope for you. maybe we will get lucky with the next generation and they won't grow up instilled with so much blind hatred and bigotry that it warps their perception to this extreme.

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 14:05
It's posts like this that make me think there is no hope. My wife reminds me the only hope is when the generation of people who think like you die off, we might be able to have one that allows all people the same basic rights.

If you (as you did in your post) equate a consenting relationship between two gay adults as the same as incest where an adult molests and victimizes a child...... there probably is no hope for you. maybe we will get lucky with the next generation and they won't grow up instilled with so much blind hatred and bigotry that it warps their perception to this extreme.

So, you are so open minded, that you think I should die? Ironic.

Who said anything about victimizing a child? That is your inference. If you intermary your first cousin, that's incest.

So, because you hate me. Again, how fascinating for an "open minded person".

Where do you base your "morality" upon?

So, what I have learned from your post? All people who disagree with you should die.

You think only certain people that you like should have rights, but others should not.

You still haven't adressed any of the relevant points.

What makes something moral to you and immoral.

Obviously, you think I should be murdered, so you think killing people who disagree with you is acceptable.

You think homosexuality is acceptable.

You think molesting children is wrong, a point we can both agree upon. Though, I have a moral code to base my position on.

You apparently have simply emotion and whatever fleeting feeling you have at the moment-including calling for my death.

What a confusing world you live in. How do you cope?

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 14:07
So, you endorse polygamy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality as acceptable.

Did you click the link in the OP? Polygamy was never a problem in the bible. Why do you have such a problem with it? Neither was rape if you handed over the sheckels to her father. That was the whole point. Marriage has always been F-ed up in some sorta way for a long time. Now modern Christians come along crying about "One man, one woman!" and WHY? Who set that standard and how the heck is the bible the place they pulled it from?

As far as I can see the only consistency is that there has to be rules about who can get married and how. Those rules change from time to time and place to place but every time and place will jump up and down screaming that their way is the only way. They're just a bunch of control freaks that need everyone to follow their rules.

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 14:11
Did you click the link in the OP? Polygamy was never a problem in the bible. Why do you have such a problem with it? Neither was rape if you handed over the sheckels to her father. That was the whole point. Marriage has always been F-ed up in some sorta way for a long time. Now modern Christians come along crying about "One man, one woman!" and WHY? Who set that standard and how the heck is the bible the place they pulled it from?

As far as I can see the only consistency is that there has to be rules about who can get married and how. Those rules change from time to time and place to place but every time and place will jump up and down screaming that their way is the only way. They're just a bunch of control freaks that need everyone to follow their rules.

So, what you are saying is you are good with homosexual marriage, polgyamy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality? Or, are you selective too, and why?

ithaca_deerslayer
05-12-2012, 15:23
So, what you are saying is you are good with homosexual marriage, polgyamy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality? Or, are you selective too, and why?

Again, you are raising a good question that is being side stepped.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 15:39
So, you endorse polygamy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality as acceptable.I don't care what consenting adults want to do with each other that doesn't affect anyone else. Incest and bestiality fail because there are victims who are not able to give their consent.

Otherwise if polygamy is defined as having one wife too many, what's the difference between that and traditional marriage?

Its the height of PC bull**** to want to outlaw gay marriage because if offends YOUR particular tender sensibilities.

Randy

steveksux
05-12-2012, 15:45
Again, you are raising a good question that is being side stepped.That's not the sidestepping going on.

So, you endorse polygamy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality as acceptable.
Did you click the link in the OP? Polygamy was never a problem in the bible. Why do you have such a problem with it? Neither was rape if you handed over the sheckels to her father. That was the whole point. .
So the question is why Kingarthurhk isn't trying to MAKE rape and polygamy legal because that's ok in the Bible.

Instead of arguing the Biblical perspective, he's opposing it.

I sense the mark of the Beast in him!

Randy

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 15:56
Again, you are raising a good question that is being side stepped.

I wasn't aware that you were so eager for my answer that an hour was too long to wait. I have a bit of a life you know, especially on the weekends.

muscogee
05-12-2012, 16:10
How about polygamy, polyandry, incest, and beastiality? I mean that is between the group and not society (polygamy and polyandry), incest is just within the family unit, and beastality is just between a person and their particular animal.

What about the people who have a fetish for the inanimate, like the woman who married a wall she was attracted to. That was just between her and the wall.

So, if you advocate gay marriage, surely you can't deny everyone else, right?

Reductio ad absurdum (http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/)

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 16:21
Reductio ad absurdum (http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/)

Nonsequitor. Please illustrate how one lifestyle is moral and the other moral without an objective moral code? I see all this support for homosexual marriage, but I am told we are crossing the line when it comes to polagmy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality? Why? When everything is relativistic and pluralistic without an objective moral code, how can there be an objection to any of these things?

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 16:21
So, what you are saying is you are good with homosexual marriage, polgyamy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality? Or, are you selective too, and why?

Steve laid it out just right as so many do on the subject and it's constantly ignored as are so many other points because you don't want to admit that the only real objection to same sex marriage is your religious beliefs. You know that that doesn't fly with regards to legal matters so you need to make it about something else.

Here's the situation; The U.S. government has already opened the Pandora's box of legal marriage. They've taken a once purely religious institution and turned it into something that provides government benefits for the individuals in those legal contracts together from tax breaks to immunity from forced testimony against one another in court to the right to hospital visits and over a thousand other legal protections.

These benefits are recognized only because those individuals have decided to make a living together as a pair and that changes things quite a bit compared to, say, someone's desire to file jointly with their room mate or not to testify against a business partner. The issue is not the slippery slope of what may come next, it's simply what the government has already stuck their hands into. The fact is that to allow protections and benefits to some COUPLES and not others by issuing contracts based only on the sexes of the people seeking said contracts is blatant sexual discrimination sanctioned and enforced by the government.

Now let's get this straight. The government isn't recognizing polyandry, incest, bestiality, marriage to toasters or any other stupid analogy you want to push for some and not others based only on sex or any other protected class so there is no slippery slope. There are only two choices, either let people that are of the same sex enter into that contract too or stop the practice of any legal recognition of couplehood altogether.

Now given only those two choices, which do you think most married people that are against same sex marriage would prefer?

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 16:26
Nonsequitor. Please illustrate how one lifestyle is moral and the other moral without an objective moral code? I see all this support for homosexual marriage, but I am told we are crossing the line when it comes to polagmy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality? Why? When everything is relativistic and pluralistic without an objective moral code, how can there be an objection to any of these things?

The moral code that's followed in a court of law is equality protection and equal application of the law, not biblical morality. Where is polagmy, polyandry, incest, or bestiality protected for some and not others based on their sex?

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 16:33
The moral code that's followed in a court of law is equality protection and equal application of the law, not biblical morality. Where is polagmy, polyandry, incest, or bestiality protected for some and not others based on their sex?

Well, using your own argument that you are accepting homosexual marriage and keep the others as illegal, then you are then not granting under the "equal protection clause" all the other people who don't hold the view that marriage is just between two people, or that close relatives shouldn't be allowed to marry as well. Or that, those that want a union with animals are left out as well.

The law of the land is the law of the land. It is not always based on any objective morality.

So, how can you justify one action considered by the majority to be deviant, but consider all the other options too deviant?

Again, without an objective morality, it would seem anything and everything is permisable, not just homosexual marriage. Once you cross that line, why can't you cross all others as well?

ithaca_deerslayer
05-12-2012, 16:49
I wasn't aware that you were so eager for my answer that an hour was too long to wait. I have a bit of a life you know, especially on the weekends.

Wasn't directed at you personally. Instead I more meant societal discussion in general, beyond discussion in this thread.

Sorry to offend.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-12-2012, 16:56
Steve laid it out just right as so many do on the subject and it's constantly ignored as are so many other points because you don't want to admit that the only real objection to same sex marriage is your religious beliefs. You know that that doesn't fly with regards to legal matters so you need to make it about something else.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I see this general line of thought (not from you personally, but from the larger societal discussion), as Christian bashing.

Often the Christians stand up against PC policies running crazy. But the interesting thing is that Christianity gets attacked, instead of the issues.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 17:04
I don't care what consenting adults want to do with each other that doesn't affect anyone else. Incest and bestiality fail because there are victims who are not able to give their consent.

Otherwise if polygamy is defined as having one wife too many, what's the difference between that and traditional marriage?

Its the height of PC bull**** to want to outlaw gay marriage because if offends YOUR particular tender sensibilities.

Randy

Well, using your own argument that you are accepting homosexual marriage and keep the others as illegal, then you are then not granting under the "equal protection clause" all the other people who don't hold the view that marriage is just between two people, or that close relatives shouldn't be allowed to marry as well. Or that, those that want a union with animals are left out as well.

The law of the land is the law of the land. It is not always based on any objective morality.

So, how can you justify one action considered by the majority to be deviant, but consider all the other options too deviant?

Again, without an objective morality, it would seem anything and everything is permisable, not just homosexual marriage. Once you cross that line, why can't you cross all others as well?

Once again, we see the question has been asked, answered, and ignored.

Randy

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 17:05
Well, using your own argument that you are accepting homosexual marriage and keep the others as illegal, then you are then not granting under the "equal protection clause" all the other people who don't hold the view that marriage is just between two people, or that close relatives shouldn't be allowed to marry as well. Or that, those that want a union with animals are left out as well.

The law of the land is the law of the land. It is not always based on any objective morality.

So, how can you justify one action considered by the majority to be deviant, but consider all the other options too deviant?

Again, without an objective morality, it would seem anything and everything is permisable, not just homosexual marriage. Once you cross that line, why can't you cross all others as well?

You just completely ignored my point that the only morality that matters with regards to law is equal protection. Your morality doesn't play into it. The issue is only that marriage is granted as a legal status (in most states) based on sex and that's discriminatory. This is not the case with bestiality, incest, etc. so how long are you going to pretend that I support those things? Is that all you got?

And BTW, it really doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. A man and woman can get married and never have sex and many do. Intercourse is not a requirement for legal marriage. Two men or two women can do the same simply because they find the benefits of the legal contract appealing in their situation. Are you going to insist on government enforced intercourse for all married couples?

Lone Wolf8634
05-12-2012, 17:08
I am a homophobe. The "EEEEEEWWWWW YUCK" factor is pretty much the reason why. I have no moral quibble with homosexuality other than its sickening to me. I realize that that makes me a bigot to some of you, and thats fine. I can live with that, so long as I'm not forced to embrace it, I dont give a damn.

That said, I don't care what they do, get married, adopt kids, whatever. By all means, they should be entitled to do whatever they want. So long as they don't step on the rights of others.

So I ask all of you who support gay rights, when the the more militant activist begin trying to force churches to change their beliefs, and try and tell everyone that disagreeing with them is a "hate crime", and saying that preachers can't preach against the lifestyle from their own pulpits, will you be there to draw that line in the sand?

Just wunderin...

ithaca_deerslayer
05-12-2012, 17:09
Now let's get this straight. The government isn't recognizing polyandry, incest, bestiality, marriage to toasters or any other stupid analogy you want to push for some and not others based only on sex or any other protected class so there is no slippery slope. There are only two choices, either let people that are of the same sex enter into that contract too or stop the practice of any legal recognition of couplehood altogether.

Now given only those two choices, which do you think most married people that are against same sex marriage would prefer?
Those aren't the only 2 choices. The additional choices include letting any kind of "marriage", to doing away with marriage altogether.

So on what basis would marriage between 3 people be denied? Or between 100 people? Or between parents and their children?

Seems like there is quite the slippery slope.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 17:11
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I see this general line of thought (not from you personally, but from the larger societal discussion), as Christian bashing.

Often the Christians stand up against PC policies running crazy. But the interesting thing is that Christianity gets attacked, instead of the issues.
Ironically, gay marriage opposition is nothing more than PC nonsense. It offends you and your religious beliefs, therefore it should be illegal. That's the bottom line.

It is entirely appropriate to bash that. Just as it is appropriate to bash those Christians and the brand of Christianity that opposed mixed race marriage, that promoted slavery back in the day, etc.

Christians and Christianity are not immune from criticism no matter what they propose. One of the reasons the country was founded was in opposition to the tenets of the Church of England being imposed by force of law on the British subjects. It was wrong then, its wrong now. The problem with it was not the particular brand of Christianity being foisted upon the populace, the problem is foisting any particular religious prohibitions and tenets through the power of the state upon people who may not be adherents to that religion.

Randy

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 17:15
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I see this general line of thought (not from you personally, but from the larger societal discussion), as Christian bashing.

Often the Christians stand up against PC policies running crazy. But the interesting thing is that Christianity gets attacked, instead of the issues.

Fighting for equal rights becomes Christian bashing when it's predominantly Christians that are opposed to the equal rights. It happened with slavery, women's vote, and the civil rights movement. In each case it was Christians holding up the bible that comprised the main opposition to those very obvious human rights issues. Sorry if you find yourself on the loosing side of history but just like non-terrorist Muslims are expected to beat down the terrorist Muslims if they don't want their good name sullied so too are good Christians expected to shout down the obtrusive Christians that can't recognize a human rights issue when they see one. The fact that so many (Muslims and Christians) don't leads the rest of us to believe that they agree with those practices.

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 17:15
You just completely ignored my point that the only morality that matters with regards to law is equal protection. Your morality doesn't play into it. The issue is only that marriage is granted as a legal status (in most states) based on sex and that's discriminatory. This is not the case with bestiality, incest, etc. so how long are you going to pretend that I support those things? Is that all you got?

That is my point. How can you say, "I declare this thing to be morally acceptable, but this thing is not, because I have just decided this and cannot explain it."

Equal Protection is not an objective morality. It is a legal construct.

My point is very simple. How can you say one thing is good and another bad arbitrarily in the context of pluralism?


And BTW, it really doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. A man and woman can get married and never have sex and many do. Intercourse is not a requirement for legal marriage. Two men or two women can do the same simply because they find the benefits of the legal contract appealing in their situation. Are you going to insist on government enforced intercourse for all married couples?

Actually, if we are referring to legal construction, a marriage can be anulled rather than put in divorce proceedings based on the lack of consumation.

My point are you going to say that your position is right, an all other positions are wrong based upon what objective morality? Considering you don't have one, I cannot see why you would object to groups of people, or consenting close relatives (incest), or those great intelligent, empathetic animals that I have been told are so much like us, and humans engaging in a marital contract.

Why would you object to those things? Afterall it is "none of your business" right? My point, if you are trully pluralistic and relativist humanistic in your ideaology, on what grounds could you object to these other unions?

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 17:19
Fighting for equal rights becomes Christian bashing when it's predominantly Christians that are opposed to the equal rights. It happened with slavery, women's vote, and the civil rights movement. In each case it was Christians holding up the bible that comprised the main opposition to those very obvious human rights issues. Sorry if you find yourself on the loosing side of history but just like non-terrorist Muslims are expected to beat down the terrorist Muslims if they don't want their good name sullied so too are good Christians expected to shout down the obtrusive Christians that can't recognize a human rights issue when they see one. The fact that so many (Muslims and Christians) don't leads the rest of us to believe that they agree with those practices.

Interesting. Harriet Beecher Stowe, what religion was she? What religion were the other abolishonists? To state that there were no abolishonists, no civil right movement people, and no women suffragists that were Christians is both inaccurate and a bald faced lie.

So, all you have his anti-Christian rhetoric to support your anti-Christian rhetoric.

So, now that we have dispensed with that, please explain to me how you can say one thing is right and another wrong when you have no objective morality?

Peace Officer
05-12-2012, 17:22
Is there any way we could purchase an island and send all the liberals out there to live on it......forever?!

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 17:23
Those aren't the only 2 choices. The additional choices include letting any kind of "marriage", to doing away with marriage altogether.

So on what basis would marriage between 3 people be denied? Or between 100 people? Or between parents and their children?



As I've said, on the basis that the government isn't recognizing multiple marriages for anybody. There's no discrimination issue with regards to multiple marriage. Who's getting away with it? Nobody, just like nobody gets away with all those other things and they definitely aren't getting rewarded or protected by the government for them.

Why is this so hard to understand? :dunno:
It's almost time to link back to the intellectual dishonesty thread.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 17:25
I am a homophobe. The "EEEEEEWWWWW YUCK" factor is pretty much the reason why. I have no moral quibble with homosexuality other than its sickening to me. I realize that that makes me a bigot to some of you, and thats fine. I can live with that, so long as I'm not forced to embrace it, I dont give a damn.Don't feel bad, i feel the same way. As long as its two men. Two women? That's lottery winning cool... :rofl:


That said, I don't care what they do, get married, adopt kids, whatever. By all means, they should be entitled to do whatever they want. So long as they don't step on the rights of others.

So I ask all of you who support gay rights, when the the more militant activist begin trying to force churches to change their beliefs, and try and tell everyone that disagreeing with them is a "hate crime", and saying that preachers can't preach against the lifestyle from their own pulpits, will you be there to draw that line in the sand?

Just wunderin...
No church should be forced to marry gays. And in fact, nobody currently forces Catholic churches to marry people who were divorced, so I don't see this as much of a problem.

And if they want to rail against it from the pulpit, they can do that all day long. Anyone in church to hear it is there of their own free will. So as long as nobody enacts legislation forcing me to go to their church and listen to them, and nobody enacts legislation preventing them from preaching what they believe, nobody enacts legislation forcing them to marry those whose lifestyle is against their interpretation of scripture, I'm content.

The right to practice one's religion is sacrosanct, so to speak.
The "right" to impose it on anyone else, is not.
Randy

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 17:25
Is there any way we could purchase an island and send all the liberals out there to live on it......forever?!

Is there any way you could construct a coherent counter argument rather than just slapping the "Liberal" label on everyone that you disagree with?

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 17:26
Is there any way we could purchase an island and send all the liberals out there to live on it......forever?!

Fire Island?:dunno:

steveksux
05-12-2012, 17:28
Fire Island?:dunno::rofl: Well played, sir, well played...

I see what you did there... :supergrin:

Randy

steveksux
05-12-2012, 17:31
Interesting. Harriet Beecher Stowe, what religion was she? What religion were the other abolishonists? To state that there were no abolishonists, no civil right movement people, and no women suffragists that were Christians is both inaccurate and a bald faced lie.I think he was referring to the christians on the other side of those issues. People use Christianity and misrepresented theology to justify all sorts of things. Look at the Christian Identity movement. Flat out racists. Doesn't make all Christians racists. Bashing those guys isn't bashing Christianity. Only their particular brand of Christianity.

So, all you have his anti-Christian rhetoric to support your anti-Christian rhetoric.Anti- THOSE Christians, yes.


So, now that we have dispensed with that, please explain to me how you can say one thing is right and another wrong when you have no objective morality?You say he has no objective morality, doesn't make it true. The same old canard that you need religion to let you know killing innocent people and screwing your children is wrong.

Randy

ithaca_deerslayer
05-12-2012, 17:37
Ironically, gay marriage opposition is nothing more than PC nonsense. It offends you and your religious beliefs, therefore it should be illegal. That's the bottom line.

It is entirely appropriate to bash that. Just as it is appropriate to bash those Christians and the brand of Christianity that opposed mixed race marriage, that promoted slavery back in the day, etc.

Christians and Christianity are not immune from criticism no matter what they propose. One of the reasons the country was founded was in opposition to the tenets of the Church of England being imposed by force of law on the British subjects. It was wrong then, its wrong now. The problem with it was not the particular brand of Christianity being foisted upon the populace, the problem is foisting any particular religious prohibitions and tenets through the power of the state upon people who may not be adherents to that religion.

Randy

My religious beliefs? I'm agnostic and not a member of any religion, nor have I ever been. There was a single year when I was 10 that I was forced to go to a Christian church, but I maintained my separation even then. I've never been baptised. But I'd say I am fairly familiar with religious beliefs, and even took a college course about religion. I've also taken courses about philosophy, science, politics, etc.

My own marriage was not in a church, but rather a civil ceremony, recognized by the State of New York. At the time, the rules were one man and one woman, and they couldn't be closely related, nor married to anyone else.

I'm not offended by gays, nor by civil unions between gays.

Colubrid
05-12-2012, 17:44
Why anyone, gay or straight, would want to enter into a marriage covenant when they don't even beleive in God is beyond me.

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 17:55
That is my point. How can you say, "I declare this thing to be morally acceptable, but this thing is not, because I have just decided this and cannot explain it."
I haven't declared anything to be morally right other than the concept of all of us being treated equally by a government that represents all of us. Do you disagree with that concept?
Equal Protection is not an objective morality. It is a legal construct.
You're trying to inject your biblical morality into a legal construct. Do you understand that our government operates on the idea of fairness for everyone and not just what a shrinking majority would like?
My point is very simple. How can you say one thing is good and another bad arbitrarily in the context of pluralism?
You seem to have a problem with the government not recognizing your particular version of morality. How sad for you.


Actually, if we are referring to legal construction, a marriage can be anulled rather than put in divorce proceedings based on the lack of consumation.
And two people can lie or not lie about the marriage having been consummated depending on if they both want annulment so it means nothing. The same would apply to same sex couples so what's your point?

My point are you going to say that your position is right, an all other positions are wrong based upon what objective morality? Considering you don't have one, I cannot see why you would object to groups of people, or consenting close relatives (incest), or those great intelligent, empathetic animals that I have been told are so much like us, and humans engaging in a marital contract.

Why would you object to those things? Afterall it is "none of your business" right? My point, if you are trully pluralistic and relativist humanistic in your ideaology, on what grounds could you object to these other unions?
I don't know how to make it any clearer to you that I'm only concerned with the legal aspect of this issue as an objective court would be. All your talk of objective morality is moot.

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 18:03
Why anyone, gay or straight, would want to enter into a marriage covenant when they don't even beleive in God is beyond me.

Also beyond you is the difference between a marriage covenant and a marriage contract. The former is designed to make 2 people feel better about having sex because they've jumped through the prerequisite hoops and the latter has actual legal meaning. One is only recognized by a particular church and the other is recognized in every other aspect of life.

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 18:05
I don't know how to make it any clearer to you that I'm only concerned with the legal aspect of this issue as an objective court would be. All your talk of objective morality is moot.

So, once again, why do you oppose the laundry list of other options and only endorse one union that is considered to be deviant by the majority? On what objective morality do you base your decision? How can you say that homosexual marriage is acceptable but polygamy, polyandry, incest, and beastiality are not acceptable? The answer, is YOU CAN'T.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-12-2012, 18:23
As I've said, on the basis that the government isn't recognizing multiple marriages for anybody. There's no discrimination issue with regards to multiple marriage. Who's getting away with it? Nobody, just like nobody gets away with all those other things and they definitely aren't getting rewarded or protected by the government for them.

Why is this so hard to understand? :dunno:
It's almost time to link back to the intellectual dishonesty thread.

The same could be said of the government not preventing any man or woman from entering into a marriage. No discrimination. All are equally free to marry.

ArtificialGrape
05-12-2012, 20:01
The same could be said of the government not preventing any man or woman from entering into a marriage. No discrimination. All are equally free to marry.
By your reasoning miscegenation laws would also not be discriminatory -- whites are free to marry, blacks are free to marry, Hispanics are free to marry. Nobody is prevented from entering into marriage.

Let's make this simple. Joe wants to marry Carole -- that's okay. Susan wants to marry Carole -- that's not okay. Susan is being discriminated against because she does not have a pen*s.

-ArtificialGrape

Colubrid
05-12-2012, 20:10
Also beyond you is the difference between a marriage covenant and a marriage contract. The former is designed to make 2 people feel better about having sex because they've jumped through the prerequisite hoops and the latter has actual legal meaning. One is only recognized by a particular church and the other is recognized in every other aspect of life.


God instituted marriage. Not man.

It is Gods institution.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 20:12
The same could be said of the government not preventing any man or woman from entering into a marriage. No discrimination. All are equally free to marry.They tried that argument in Loving vs Virginia. They lost. Being free to marry is not the same as being free to choose who you marry. In Loving v Virginia they were indeed free to marry anyone of the same race, just like anyone else. So "no discrimination" involved was the argument. Same as here regarding gay marriage. Men can marry any woman they choose. Just not another man.

That was irrelevant. They were not free to marry the person they wanted to of the opposite race. Thus the discrimination occurred. People who fell in love with persons of the opposite race were in fact being discriminated against.

The right to marry is meaningless if you can't marry the one you love. The court rightly recognized the limits that can be imposed on that choice. Without a compelling reason, i.e. a minor unable to legally consent, an animal unable to legally consent, the majority merely being uncomfortable with the choice of the people getting married was not sufficient reason to block the marriage.

The court will (in my view) eventually rule similarly regarding gay marriage if the legislatures don't permit it first and someone gets a lawsuit going.

Randy

steveksux
05-12-2012, 20:21
My religious beliefs? I'm agnostic and not a member of any religion, nor have I ever been. I was referring to this:

Often the Christians stand up against PC policies running crazy. But the interesting thing is that Christianity gets attacked, instead of the issues.I was making the argument that their opposition is itself a PC policy.

Their argument boils down to gay marriage offends them based on their religious views so it should be outlawed.

Did not mean to imply the you referred to you in particular, poorly worded on my part.

Randy

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 23:44
God instituted marriage. Not man.

It is Gods institution.

I reject your argument based on separation of church and state and a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court would do the same. Why is government recognizing an institution of god? Can members of religions that allow for multiple wives have several legal wives because of religious beliefs? Didn't work for the Mormons.

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 00:01
So, once again, why do you oppose the laundry list of other options and only endorse one union that is considered to be deviant by the majority? On what objective morality do you base your decision? How can you say that homosexual marriage is acceptable but polygamy, polyandry, incest, and beastiality are not acceptable? The answer, is YOU CAN'T.

But I can. You just won't (or rather will pretend to not) comprehend it. I don't believe the majority makes the rules for the minority. That's why we have a representative republic instead of a majority rules democracy. Your majority means nothing to me just as you wouldn't be swayed in your opinion if 51% of the population voted yes on a national referendum to allow same sex marriage.

Grape said it best when he stated,

"Let's make this simple. Joe wants to marry Carole -- that's okay. Susan wants to marry Carole -- that's not okay. Susan is being discriminated against because she does not have a pen*s."

Now can you think of any other legal document that's issued or not issued on the basis of pen*s ownership?
How long will you pretend not to understand that?

Can Joe legally have sex with children or legally marry a rabbit because he has a pen*s whereas Susan can't? No. That's not going on anywhere so it doesn't apply to the argument but it's all you've got so you will persist.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 02:17
But I can. You just won't (or rather will pretend to not) comprehend it. I don't believe the majority makes the rules for the minority. That's why we have a representative republic instead of a majority rules democracy. Your majority means nothing to me just as you wouldn't be swayed in your opinion if 51% of the population voted yes on a national referendum to allow same sex marriage.

Grape said it best when he stated,

"Let's make this simple. Joe wants to marry Carole -- that's okay. Susan wants to marry Carole -- that's not okay. Susan is being discriminated against because she does not have a pen*s."

Now can you think of any other legal document that's issued or not issued on the basis of pen*s ownership?
How long will you pretend not to understand that?

Can Joe legally have sex with children or legally marry a rabbit because he has a pen*s whereas Susan can't? No. That's not going on anywhere so it doesn't apply to the argument but it's all you've got so you will persist.

Sorry, you have yet to make a valid argument for your position. Rather you have underscored the fact that you cannot say that homosexual marriage is acceptable but limit it there. Once you have gone down that slippery slope then you have made everything permissable.

I have never advocated sex with children. My analogy for incest was first cousins, or perhaps even grown siblings. You have not addressed that issue, nor have you adressed polyamgy or polyandry.

Therefore, according to your argument the above mentioned groups, though they are a very small majority, should be able to dictate to society what marriage should be; because the majority shouldn't be able to do so.

Further, because you have no objective morality to turn to, you have no moral argument to deny the above mentioned groups their rights to engage in their group marriage or their close relative marriage.

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 02:43
I have never advocated sex with children. Why not? The Bible does, and isn't it the basis for your morality?

Further, because you have no objective morality to turn to, you have no moral argument to deny the above mentioned groups their rights to engage in their group marriage or their close relative marriage. You don't have an objective morality to turn to either, you just happen to want to inflict your own subjective morality on everyone else.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 06:08
I just want to point out, for the record, that theists here often ask why the atheists come here and argue religion. "Why not just live and let live", they say. Well, the utter load of crap found here in the incoherent ramblings of theists is exactly the reason why. You can't let other people live like they want. You insist on imposing your view of what your mythical deity wants on others and as long you continue to do so then I'll be right here arguing against you.

rgregoryb
05-13-2012, 06:37
as a non-theist I find the whole concept of gay marriage reprehensible, but hey that's my opinion and I consider it as valid as yours.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-13-2012, 06:53
They tried that argument in Loving vs Virginia. They lost. Being free to marry is not the same as being free to choose who you marry. In Loving v Virginia they were indeed free to marry anyone of the same race, just like anyone else. So "no discrimination" involved was the argument. Same as here regarding gay marriage. Men can marry any woman they choose. Just not another man.

That was irrelevant. They were not free to marry the person they wanted to of the opposite race. Thus the discrimination occurred. People who fell in love with persons of the opposite race were in fact being discriminated against.

The right to marry is meaningless if you can't marry the one you love. The court rightly recognized the limits that can be imposed on that choice. Without a compelling reason, i.e. a minor unable to legally consent, an animal unable to legally consent, the majority merely being uncomfortable with the choice of the people getting married was not sufficient reason to block the marriage.

The court will (in my view) eventually rule similarly regarding gay marriage if the legislatures don't permit it first and someone gets a lawsuit going.

Randy

The race stuff is not the same. People can make the analogy, and some courts might buy it. But if marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, then the issue is done with.

Gays can love each other. And often the compromise of civil unions is offered to them. But some gays, and some non-gays supporting them, won't be happy unless it gets called a marriage.

But it is not a marriage, and those in favor of it are just pretending that it is.

If we allow that kind of "marriage" then we have to allow all kinds. 3s and 100s.

Lone Wolf8634
05-13-2012, 07:27
Don't feel bad, i feel the same way. As long as its two men. Two women? That's lottery winning cool... :rofl:

Funny, I've got the same double standard...:supergrin:


No church should be forced to marry gays. And in fact, nobody currently forces Catholic churches to marry people who were divorced, so I don't see this as much of a problem.

And if they want to rail against it from the pulpit, they can do that all day long. Anyone in church to hear it is there of their own free will. So as long as nobody enacts legislation forcing me to go to their church and listen to them, and nobody enacts legislation preventing them from preaching what they believe, nobody enacts legislation forcing them to marry those whose lifestyle is against their interpretation of scripture, I'm content.

The right to practice one's religion is sacrosanct, so to speak.
The "right" to impose it on anyone else, is not.
Randy

I wasn't implying that it had already happened. Only that, with the rhetoric I've heard, it could conceivably get to that point.

Otherwise, I'm in agreement.

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 07:46
Sorry, you have yet to make a valid argument for your position. Rather you have underscored the fact that you cannot say that homosexual marriage is acceptable but limit it there. Once you have gone down that slippery slope then you have made everything permissable.
There's that "slippery slope" argument again. As I've said before there really isn't much of a slope at all and it's only slippery from the dripping mouth foam of rabid bigots that won't shut up about the issue. The line of marriage being between two and only ever between two people is already drawn by the fact that that's all the government has ever recognized.
I have never advocated sex with children. My analogy for incest was first cousins, or perhaps even grown siblings. You have not addressed that issue, nor have you adressed polyamgy or polyandry.
There only needs to be a sensible reason to not allow it. Siblings and cousins can have inbred children that can suffer a number of issues from physical deformities to learning disabilities to a complete inability to understand a valid argument. You can't stop them from having sex if they really want to but you don't have to support their bad choice with a marriage contract. How can same sex couples have these reproductive issues? Polygamy is not recognized and the legal argument for never doing so is clear when you think about people marrying simply for some benefits here and there. Sorry (not really) if you don't like it if the same sex issue falls much closer to regular marriage than any of the other situations.
Therefore, according to your argument the above mentioned groups, though they are a very small majority, should be able to dictate to society what marriage should be; because the majority shouldn't be able to do so.
Nobody dictates to anyone what a marriage is. That's just stupid martyr talk. You make of your own marriage what you wish it to be and leave others to do the same. You don't have a problem dictating to others that they can't even have a marriage yet you complain about dictation to you. You're a hypocrite masquerading as a Christian.
Further, because you have no objective morality to turn to, you have no moral argument to deny the above mentioned groups their rights to engage in their group marriage or their close relative marriage.
I don't need a moral argument. I have a legal argument and a pretty darn good one at that and it'll be a similar argument before the SCOTUS that settles this matter once and for all and leaves people like you with no options other than grumble about it while we wait for the last of you to die out. I'm fine with that. Some of you are so dense that I think I'd rather watch you suffer your own ignorance than try to change your minds.

muscogee
05-13-2012, 08:03
Nonsequitor. Please illustrate how one lifestyle is moral and the other moral without an objective moral code? I see all this support for homosexual marriage, but I am told we are crossing the line when it comes to polagmy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality? Why? When everything is relativistic and pluralistic without an objective moral code, how can there be an objection to any of these things?

On the contrary, your argument is a reductio ad absurdum argument. To wit: if gay marriages are allowed than incestuous marriages should be allowed. How is that logically different from saying that if it is legal to kill animals and eat them then it's legal to treat humans the same way. Your logic is flawed.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 08:18
as a non-theist I find the whole concept of gay marriage reprehensible, but hey that's my opinion and I consider it as valid as yours.

You may consider it such, but that doesn't mean it is. If something doesn't infringe upon your personal liberties or otherwise impact you directly then it is none of your business and you should stay out of it.

I have a real easy solution to this whole mess. Government should just get the hell out of the marriage business entirely. Seriously, why are states issuing marriage licenses in the first place? Just do away with it and let people do as they please.

If they want to have a service and present themselves as a married couple then let them do that on their own. To cover the legal needs (property, inheritance, etc) then just make civil unions open to everyone.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 08:23
Nonsequitor.

To quote the OP (who was quoting Inigo Montoya), "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

muscogee
05-13-2012, 08:25
I am a homophobe. The "EEEEEEWWWWW YUCK" factor is pretty much the reason why. I have no moral quibble with homosexuality other than its sickening to me. I realize that that makes me a bigot to some of you, and thats fine. I can live with that, so long as I'm not forced to embrace it, I dont give a damn.
So you have nothing against homosexuals as long as they don't try to ram it down your throat.

That said, I don't care what they do, get married, adopt kids, whatever. By all means, they should be entitled to do whatever they want. So long as they don't step on the rights of others.

So I ask all of you who support gay rights, when the the more militant activist begin trying to force churches to change their beliefs, and try and tell everyone that disagreeing with them is a "hate crime", and saying that preachers can't preach against the lifestyle from their own pulpits, will you be there to draw that line in the sand?

Just wunderin...

I would. Consenting adults can do anything they want in private and it's none of my business. I don't care for Jeremiah Wright but I don't think he should be censored either.

And yes to all of Kingarthurhk's anticipated questions.

GreenDrake
05-13-2012, 08:27
God instituted marriage. Not man.

It is Gods institution.

And man created god. Quid pro quo.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-13-2012, 08:31
You may consider it such, but that doesn't mean it is. If something doesn't infringe upon your personal liberties or otherwise impact you directly then it is none of your business and you should stay out of it.

I have a real easy solution to this whole mess. Government should just get the hell out of the marriage business entirely. Seriously, why are states issuing marriage licenses in the first place? Just do away with it and let people do as they please.

If they want to have a service and present themselves as a married couple then let them do that on their own. To cover the legal needs (property, inheritance, etc) then just make civil unions open to everyone.

Lots of truth in this. But you forgot to mention that it does affect us all. Marriage is an econonic and legal institution, so you can imagine how changes in it affect all in society, including our taxes.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 08:40
Lots of truth in this. But you forgot to mention that it does affect us all. Marriage is an econonic and legal institution, so you can imagine how changes in it affect all in society, including our taxes.

Meh, not really. Just substitute the term "civil union" for "marriage" and everything stays the same. Those opposed to not allowing gay marriage have argued similary (that gay couples should be happy with equivalent civil unions). Just turning it around and seeing how they like it.

muscogee
05-13-2012, 08:41
Why anyone, gay or straight, would want to enter into a marriage covenant when they don't even beleive in God is beyond me.

To enjoy the same financial benefits as straight couples. Paying equal benefits to gay couples is going to be a problem.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 08:47
Why anyone, gay or straight, would want to enter into a marriage covenant when they don't even beleive in God is beyond me.

This just furthers my point. Marriage is a religious institution and we have a secular government in this country (at least we are supposed to). The government should just stop issuing marriage licenses alltogether and instead issue equivalent civil unions. If a couple wants to match that with a marriage ceremony in their preferred church then that's fine. Civil unions as a total replacement for marriage in any legal, financial or political sense seems to solve all sorts of problems.

juggy4711
05-13-2012, 08:48
You may consider it such, but that doesn't mean it is. If something doesn't infringe upon your personal liberties or otherwise impact you directly then it is none of your business and you should stay out of it.

I have a real easy solution to this whole mess. Government should just get the hell out of the marriage business entirely. Seriously, why are states issuing marriage licenses in the first place? Just do away with it and let people do as they please.

If they want to have a service and present themselves as a married couple then let them do that on their own. To cover the legal needs (property, inheritance, etc) then just make civil unions open to everyone.

But who would arbitrate who gets what in a divorce, custody of children etc. I'm not sure there is way to keep the government out of marriage.

ETA

This just furthers my point. Marriage is a religious institution and we have a secular government in this country (at least we are supposed to). The government should just stop issuing marriage licenses alltogether and instead issue equivalent civil unions. If a couple wants to match that with a marriage ceremony in their preferred church then that's fine. Civil unions as a total replacement for marriage in any legal, financial or political sense seems to solve all sorts of problems.

That makes sense in regards to my prior question however it is far to reasonable to ever imagine our government would go for it. It would be one less thing they had control over and they can't have that.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 08:52
But who would arbitrate who gets what in a divorce, custody of children etc. I'm not sure there is way to keep the government out of marriage.

Divorce would be replaced with the disolution of a civil union. No reason to re-invent the wheel. Just replace the terminology so the religious crowd doesn't get all bent out of shape over it all the time. That way, they can keep their "marriage" definition as one man and one woman in their own church and the rest of us can move on.

GreenDrake
05-13-2012, 09:00
Geko, that's kind of the way I see it too. It's either falsely claimed discrimination due to perceived "unfairness" of the principle of simply calling it "marriage" or it's a money grab for benefits to same sex couples. I have no religious beef in it, I just don't agree with it being called marriage.

Vic Hays
05-13-2012, 09:04
Divorce would be replaced with the disolution of a civil union. No reason to re-invent the wheel. Just replace the terminology so the religious crowd doesn't get all bent out of shape over it all the time. That way, they can keep their "marriage" definition as one man and one woman in their own church and the rest of us can move on.

You are talking sense here. The reason Christians are upset about the whole gay marriage thing is that the gays are trying to redefine the word "marriage" to legitimatize their relationships.
I do not know of any historical precedent that allowed same sex marriages.
I personally do not care if the government recognizes civil unions only and does not use the word marriage. The government of the USA is mandated to provide equal protection and not be involved with policing religion . Marriage then would only be used strictly in a religious sense.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 09:11
You are talking sense here. The reason Christians are upset about the whole gay marriage thing is that the gays are trying to redefine the word "marriage" to legitimatize their relationships.
I do not know of any historical precedent that allowed same sex marriages.
I personally do not care if the government recognizes civil unions only and does not use the word marriage. The government of the USA is mandated to provide equal protection and not be involved with policing religion . Marriage then would only be used strictly in a religious sense.

Somebody note the time. Vic and I are in agreement.

:faint: :supergrin:

Seriously Vic, I am glad to read that you see the sense in this. I've often wondered why this idea hasn't surfaced on the national scene yet (or at least at some state level). So many of these difficulties would just wash away.

juggy4711
05-13-2012, 09:28
You are talking sense here. The reason Christians are upset about the whole gay marriage thing is that the gays are trying to redefine the word "marriage" to legitimatize their relationships.
I do not know of any historical precedent that allowed same sex marriages.
I personally do not care if the government recognizes civil unions only and does not use the word marriage. The government of the USA is mandated to provide equal protection and not be involved with policing religion . Marriage then would only be used strictly in a religious sense.

I think this issue could be made light of. Some would argue that civil unions between gay folks are marriages by another name. However that is the true beauty of the English language. The specificity and volume of terms. Words mean very specific things. The difference between hear and listen. I

I believe that linguistically marriage means a union between a man and a woman. While some would find the difference between marriage and a same sex civil union superficial, I find it be of importance. It is when we seek to redefine words that new speak becomes a threat.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-13-2012, 10:27
This just furthers my point. Marriage is a religious institution and we have a secular government in this country (at least we are supposed to). The government should just stop issuing marriage licenses alltogether and instead issue equivalent civil unions. If a couple wants to match that with a marriage ceremony in their preferred church then that's fine. Civil unions as a total replacement for marriage in any legal, financial or political sense seems to solve all sorts of problems.

I like that approach.

But still, why not a civil union between 3 or 100? On what basis would the government have to limit it to 2?

ithaca_deerslayer
05-13-2012, 10:29
Geko, that's kind of the way I see it too. It's either falsely claimed discrimination due to perceived "unfairness" of the principle of simply calling it "marriage" or it's a money grab for benefits to same sex couples. I have no religious beef in it, I just don't agree with it being called marriage.

I agree with you.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-13-2012, 10:37
You are talking sense here. The reason Christians are upset about the whole gay marriage thing is that the gays are trying to redefine the word "marriage" to legitimatize their relationships.
I do not know of any historical precedent that allowed same sex marriages.
I personally do not care if the government recognizes civil unions only and does not use the word marriage. The government of the USA is mandated to provide equal protection and not be involved with policing religion . Marriage then would only be used strictly in a religious sense.

I agree. It is just a way for them to pretend they are married. They can still have something good, be a good family, good parents, good citizens, and have their civil union legally recognized. But they can't be married, and that bugs them. Their complaining about it is just PC crap.

It takes a man and a woman to have a marriage.

HexHead
05-13-2012, 10:39
Marriage should just be defined as a union between two people able to procreate together. End of issue.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-13-2012, 10:40
I think this issue could be made light of. Some would argue that civil unions between gay folks are marriages by another name. However that is the true beauty of the English language. The specificity and volume of terms. Words mean very specific things. The difference between hear and listen. I

I believe that linguistically marriage means a union between a man and a woman. While some would find the difference between marriage and a same sex civil union superficial, I find it be of importance. It is when we seek to redefine words that new speak becomes a threat.

Exactly. And newspeak fo PC reasons is annoying to say the least. There is something to be said for conservative values :)

JAS104
05-13-2012, 10:45
I agree with you.

A marriage is between a man and a woman. If between others, it can be called a civil union.

I have gay friends and in my opinion they have no idea what a marriage is. Same sex civil unions match the same genders, same world views, same sex drives, same sex parts, same types of feelings, same biological changes, and all sorts of similar stuff. It is all homogeous. That is not a marriage.

A marriage is the bringing together of two different things, such as a man and a woman. Now that is something special.

Two fishing buddies getting together and deciding they want to have sex and live together does not impress me at all. :rofl:

Plus one.
And the fishing buddies thing was funny as sin lol

Guss
05-13-2012, 10:53
Marriage is much too personal a thing for government to be involved. Get government out of the marriage business entirely. If people want to draw up contracts between each other, let them.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 11:23
Why not? The Bible does, and isn't it the basis for your morality?
You don't have an objective morality to turn to either, you just happen to want to inflict your own subjective morality on everyone else.

Please justify your claim. Simply saying something doesn't make it so. It is the equivalent of me saying Atheists are attacted to Apes because they believe they are descended from them.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 11:25
I just want to point out, for the record, that theists here often ask why the atheists come here and argue religion. "Why not just live and let live", they say. Well, the utter load of crap found here in the incoherent ramblings of theists is exactly the reason why. You can't let other people live like they want. You insist on imposing your view of what your mythical deity wants on others and as long you continue to do so then I'll be right here arguing against you.

I find the Atheist ramblings very baffling. How do you declare one thing moral and and another thing immoral when it comes to people wanting to marry in groups or close family relatives? The answer is you can't. And for some reason it bugs you.

The reason I bug you is the complete inconsistancy.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 11:34
I find the Atheist ramblings very baffling. How do you declare one thing moral and and another thing immoral when it comes to people wanting to marry in groups or close family relatives? The answer is you can't. And for some reason it bugs you.

Who declared any of that? I sure didn't. I don't care what consenting adults do as long as it does not impact my liberty and there should be no law against it unless it impacts someone's liberty directly. A biological argument can be made against close family for the obvious risk of birth defects, but for "compound" marriages, as long as everyone is in full consent and no one is being coerced then I care not.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 12:17
Who declared any of that? I sure didn't. I don't care what consenting adults do as long as it does not impact my liberty and there should be no law against it unless it impacts someone's liberty directly. A biological argument can be made against close family for the obvious risk of birth defects, but for "compound" marriages, as long as everyone is in full consent and no one is being coerced then I care not.

I could use a similar argument though biology as you did for close family for gay marriage. It does not produce any offspring, and has been shown statistically to be a riskier lifestyle than heterosexuals in the spread of STD's.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 12:27
I could use a similar argument though biology as you did for close family for gay marriage. It does not produce any offspring, and has been shown statistically to be a riskier lifestyle than heterosexuals in the spread of STD's.

So, sterile heterosexuals should not marry either?

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 13:07
So, sterile heterosexuals should not marry either?

In which community in the United States did the AIDS virus hit the hardest originally?

ArtificialGrape
05-13-2012, 14:10
I could use a similar argument though biology as you did for close family for gay marriage. It does not produce any offspring, and has been shown statistically to be a riskier lifestyle than heterosexuals in the spread of STD's.
Is there an obligation to procreate? What about post-menopausal women and men and women suffering from a variety of causes of infertility? What about fertile heterosexual couples that choose not to procreate?

Just what requirement are you trying to enforce regarding procreation?

As far as risky behavior, would you also campaign to restrict what the morbidly obese are able to do on their journey to eat themselves to death?

Just what requirement are you trying to enforce regarding risky behavior?

-ArtificialGrape

muscogee
05-13-2012, 14:22
I could use a similar argument though biology as you did for close family for gay marriage. It does not produce any offspring, and has been shown statistically to be a riskier lifestyle than heterosexuals in the spread of STD's.

Not if they're monogamous.

muscogee
05-13-2012, 14:26
In which community in the United States did the AIDS virus hit the hardest originally?

Where did syphilis hit the hardest? What's your point?

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 14:38
Not if they're monogamous.

Which community is known for being mongoamous? Married heterosexual couples, or homosexual couples?

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 14:39
Where did syphilis hit the hardest? What's your point?

Europe. What's yours?

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 14:40
Is there an obligation to procreate? What about post-menopausal women and men and women suffering from a variety of causes of infertility? What about fertile heterosexual couples that choose not to procreate?

Just what requirement are you trying to enforce regarding procreation?

As far as risky behavior, would you also campaign to restrict what the morbidly obese are able to do on their journey to eat themselves to death?

Just what requirement are you trying to enforce regarding risky behavior?

-ArtificialGrape

So, how would you continue the species if all people decided not to procreate for some reason or other? If it more natural to continue the species, or not to?

ArtificialGrape
05-13-2012, 14:51
So, how would you continue the species if all people decided not to procreate for some reason or other? If it more natural to continue the species, or not to?
There have always been more than enough procreators to continue the species -- Muslims are certainly doing their share.

-ArtificialGrape

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 14:52
In which community in the United States did the AIDS virus hit the hardest originally?

You obviously don't have a problem with gun ownership even though countless gun owners cause death and destruction every year and often to others rather than themselves. Is that any reason to restrict gun ownership to everyone? How is saying that all homosexuals can't behave responsibly any different.

It's a little late in your anti-gay diatribe to claim concern for their health and well being and I'd bet that most of them would tell you to stick it anyway.

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 14:59
Which community is known for being mongoamous? Married heterosexual couples, or homosexual couples?
Married heteros are less promiscuous than single heteros.
Homosexual couples that express an interest in getting married are likely more apt to be monogamous than those that don't. If it's the promiscuity you take issue with then why not support their desire to slow that down a bit?

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 15:01
You obviously don't have a problem with gun ownership even though countless gun owners cause death and destruction every year and often to others rather than themselves. Is that any reason to restrict gun ownership to everyone? How is saying that all homosexuals can't behave responsibly any different.

It's a little late in your anti-gay diatribe to claim concern for their health and well being and I'd bet that most of them would tell you to stick it anyway.

You argument against close relative unions was that it causes biological harm. My point was the AIDS epidemic, which has caused not only biological harm and dead originated first in the United States in which community, and why?

As to the firearm issue:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01393/scarecrow_1393613c.jpg

Vic Hays
05-13-2012, 15:27
Somebody note the time. Vic and I are in agreement.

:faint: :supergrin:

Seriously Vic, I am glad to read that you see the sense in this. I've often wondered why this idea hasn't surfaced on the national scene yet (or at least at some state level). So many of these difficulties would just wash away.

The reason why these problems have not just washed away is that satan works both sides of the street.

God's principles are Truth, love, mercy, justice, and individual freedom.

satan seeks to control and there are plenty of people both religious and secular that buy into forcing others. Some religious people are therefore trying to work for God like the devil. This does not mean that they must not be vocal about what they perceive to be right. This PC stuff is another control method.

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 15:53
Please justify your claim. I admit the urge to post 12 hours of tangentially related videos from youtube is almost overwhelming, but I'll stick to just using scripture.

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

Simply saying something doesn't make it so. It is the equivalent of me saying Atheists are attacted to Apes because they believe they are descended from them. At least you're still admitting to the reality of evolution, even if you're getting the details wrong.

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 16:01
You argument against close relative unions was that it causes biological harm. My point was the AIDS epidemic, which has caused not only biological harm and dead originated first in the United States in which community, and why?







I've just had a minor epiphany thanks to you, KA. If the benefits of legal marriage are provided for gay couples then more of them would be willing to be in monogamous relationships thus taking them out of the promiscuous gay sex rotation. This would reduce the transmission of HIV and other STDs. I'd never considered this argument before you brought it up but it's a damn good one and I plan to spread it far and wide so thank you for that spark of enlightenment from the least expected of places. Seems you've made your fight a little bit harder. You really should think your arguments through. If just one person is saved from contracting HIV because the man they would have had unprotected sex with was married to another man isn't it worth it? It's a public health issue so now we have to do it.

As soon as incest somehow decreases the rate of birth defects I'll get behind that too.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 16:02
I admit the urge to post 12 hours of tangentially related videos from youtube is almost overwhelming, but I'll stick to just using scripture.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)
At least you're still admitting to the reality of evolution, even if you're getting the details wrong.

That didn't mean to have sex with children. It meant keep the virgin or pure people.

I'll me nice to you considering it Mother's Day.:supergrin:

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 16:06
Somebody note the time. Vic and I are in agreement.

:faint: :supergrin:

Seriously Vic, I am glad to read that you see the sense in this. I've often wondered why this idea hasn't surfaced on the national scene yet (or at least at some state level). So many of these difficulties would just wash away.

Blind squirrel, meet nut. Nut, blind squirrel. Now you kids get to know each other. I'm gonna hit the bar.

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 16:10
That didn't mean to have sex with children. It meant keep the virgin or pure people.

I'll me nice to you considering it Mother's Day.:supergrin:

And yet god, in his infinite wisdom, didn't foresee when he was dictating the bible that that might be misconstrued to mean "for you to have sex with"?

I certainly take it that way.

Also, the image this conjures up of virgin check execution squads is just F-ed up, man. Royally F-ed up.

steveksux
05-13-2012, 16:17
The race stuff is not the same. People can make the analogy, and some courts might buy it. But if marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, then the issue is done with.And that's just as discriminatory to gays as when marriage was defined as between a man and a woman of the same race was to people in love with someone of a different race. There's no difference whatsoever.
Gays can love each other. And often the compromise of civil unions is offered to them. But some gays, and some non-gays supporting them, won't be happy unless it gets called a marriage.

But it is not a marriage, and those in favor of it are just pretending that it is.Once you call it a marriage, its a marriage.



If we allow that kind of "marriage" then we have to allow all kinds. 3s and 100s.No they don't. gay marriage comes in 2 ways. Either laws will be passed spelling out exactly what the new definition of marriage includes, or the courts will rule on a specific case of a gay couple denied a marriage license and strike down bans on gay marriage.

The courts don't expand beyond the particular circumstances of the participants. The legislature will legalize exactly what they want to. Nothing forces them to include 3's or 100's.

Randy

Randy

steveksux
05-13-2012, 16:20
On the contrary, your argument is a reductio ad absurdum argument. To wit: if gay marriages are allowed than incestuous marriages should be allowed. How is that logically different from saying that if it is legal to kill animals and eat them then it's legal to treat humans the same way. Your logic is flawed.You act as if a logical fallacy doesn't make for a perfectly fine compelling argument! :rofl:

Randy

steveksux
05-13-2012, 16:21
So you have nothing against homosexuals as long as they don't try to ram it down your throat. So to speak, yes, you could say that... :whistling:

Randy

Lone Wolf8634
05-13-2012, 16:26
So to speak, yes, you could say that... :whistling:

Randy


But I'd rather not.....:ack::puking:

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 16:58
That didn't mean to have sex with children. It meant keep the virgin or pure people. Not people, female children. Males were specifically to be killed, no matter what their age. What reason would there be to specify keeping only female virgins, if not for sexual purposes? Could you point out the passage of the Bible that supports your view?

Paul7
05-13-2012, 17:06
Not people, female children. Males were specifically to be killed, no matter what their age. What reason would there be to specify keeping only female virgins, if not for sexual purposes? Could you point out the passage of the Bible that supports your view?

Would you be happier if they were killed? You know, like we did to our enemies at Hiroshima?

Paul7
05-13-2012, 17:06
Not if they're monogamous.

Where are these monogamous gays?

Paul7
05-13-2012, 17:08
You argument against close relative unions was that it causes biological harm. My point was the AIDS epidemic, which has caused not only biological harm and dead originated first in the United States in which community, and why?

As to the firearm issue:



The gay community, right Gunhaver?

Paul7
05-13-2012, 17:10
Somebody note the time. Vic and I are in agreement.

:faint: :supergrin:

Seriously Vic, I am glad to read that you see the sense in this. I've often wondered why this idea hasn't surfaced on the national scene yet (or at least at some state level). So many of these difficulties would just wash away.

Civil unions also wouldn't bother me.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 17:19
Not people, female children. Males were specifically to be killed, no matter what their age. What reason would there be to specify keeping only female virgins, if not for sexual purposes? Could you point out the passage of the Bible that supports your view?

Why? Considering you have taken it completely out of context, and then inferred things that were not there.

I'm still trying to be nice to you considering it's Mother's Day.:supergrin:

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 17:23
Why? Considering you have taken it completely out of context, and then inferred things that were not there. That would be a no on sharing the Bible passage supporting your position then? Perhaps you could explain how I've taken it out of context. Don't feel the need to spare my feelings.

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 17:24
Would you be happier if they were killed? Those are the only two options in your mind? Slavery as sexual objects for the Israelites or death?
You know, like we did to our enemies at Hiroshima? We intentionally killed all males, including children, at Hiroshima? Could you document that claim.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 17:25
That would be a no on sharing the Bible passage supporting your position then? Perhaps you could explain how I've taken it out of context. Don't feel the need to spare my feelings.

Certainly, only the pure viriginal people were taken and spared. It did not say that anyone was having sex with children. That is something you injected.

Again, have a wonderful Mother's Day.:supergrin:

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 17:31
The gay community, right Gunhaver?

Right. And with the help of KA I already made the case for why legal marriages would increase monogamy among gay males and reduce the spread of HIV.

Or would you rather just have them all executed? You seem to have no problem justifying the execution of little boys if your god so decrees. What sin did those boys commit to justify execution? The sin of wrong place, wrong time? Wow. That's some objective morality you've got there.

Vic Hays
05-13-2012, 17:38
And yet god, in his infinite wisdom, didn't foresee when he was dictating the bible that that might be misconstrued to mean "for you to have sex with"?

I certainly take it that way.

Also, the image this conjures up of virgin check execution squads is just F-ed up, man. Royally F-ed up.

The possibilities included marriage, or letting them go free. There is no sex slave option.

Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 17:42
Those are the only two options in your mind? Slavery as sexual objects for the Israelites or death?


Even a transvestite comedian could come up with a better option than that.

Eddie izzard-cake or death - YouTube

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 17:52
The possibilities included marriage, or letting them go free. There is no sex slave option.

Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.


Ignoring the fact that you've killed her entire family and graciously given her an entire month to grieve, where is the option for he to decline marriage to the bastard that killed her entire family? There isn't one. Given that women were property during that time, this is the little song and dance ritual that makes rape OK so long as you jump through the proper hoops and call it a marriage before you get to the raping. That is unless you prefer the rape first and toss some sheckles to her father route instead. No wonder you take issue with gay marriage. With all that consent and option to leave involved they're doing it all wrong according to your standards.

Vic Hays
05-13-2012, 18:06
Ignoring the fact that you've killed her entire family and graciously given her an entire month to grieve, where is the option for he to decline marriage to the bastard that killed her entire family? There isn't one. Given that women were property during that time, this is the little song and dance ritual that makes rape OK so long as you jump through the proper hoops and call it a marriage before you get to the raping. That is unless you prefer the rape first and toss some sheckles to her father route instead. No wonder you take issue with gay marriage. With all that consent and option to leave involved they're doing it all wrong according to your standards.

Besides all the platitudes things were rough in those days. There were not many options for women then and even up to 50 years ago there were not many options and it was difficult for single women to survive on their own.

If a man took a woman for his wife he was obligated to love her and care for her. It wasn't easy for the men either. Survival took backbreaking labor for both the husband and wife.

Proverbs 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
31:11 The heart of her husband does safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
31:13 She seeks wool, and flax, and works willingly with her hands.
31:14 She is like the merchants’ships; she brings her food from afar.
31:15 She rises also while it is yet night, and gives meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
31:16 She considers a field, and buys it: with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
31:17 She girds her loins with strength, and strengthens her arms.
31:18 She perceives that her merchandise is good: her candle goes not out by night.
31:19 She lays her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
31:20 She stretches out her hand to the poor; yes, she reaches forth her hands to the needy.
31:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
31:22 She makes herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
31:23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land.
31:24 She makes fine linen, and sells it; and delivers girdles to the merchant.
31:25 Strength and honor are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
31:26 She opens her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
31:27 She looks well to the ways of her household, and eats not the bread of idleness.
31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her.
31:29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but you excel them all.

While it is good for a man to have a virtuous wife it is also good for a woman to have a virtuous man.

Proverbs 20:4 The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing.
20:5 Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; but a man of understanding will draw it out.
20:6 Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?
20:7 The just man walks in his integrity: his children are blessed after him.

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 18:15
Certainly, only the pure viriginal people were taken and spared. Not people, girls. Only girls. Which one of us is finding it necessary to distort the passage?
It did not say that anyone was having sex with children. It also doesn't say that they were spared, it says, "keep alive for yourselves." What other meaning could that have, in the context of the time and place?

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 18:17
The possibilities included marriage, or letting them go free. "keep alive for yourselves" seems to preclude letting them go free.
There is no sex slave option. The best case scenario is forced marriage to the people who slaughtered their families. How is that functionally different than sex slavery?

camelotkid
05-13-2012, 18:44
Where are these monogamous gays?
all over the place. Every gay couple that I know that is married is monogamous :wavey:

juggy4711
05-13-2012, 19:25
Who declared any of that? I sure didn't. I don't care what consenting adults do as long as it does not impact my liberty and there should be no law against it unless it impacts someone's liberty directly. A biological argument can be made against close family for the obvious risk of birth defects, but for "compound" marriages, as long as everyone is in full consent and no one is being coerced then I care not.

I would agree with one caveat. Polygamists with 15 wives/husbands or whatever combination that have 20 plus children all receiving government aid is when I have a problem with it. I don't take issue with what consenting adults do until I have to pay for it.

You argument against close relative unions was that it causes biological harm. My point was the AIDS epidemic, which has caused not only biological harm and dead originated first in the United States in which community, and why?...


Having previously worked in HIV/AIDS research for nearly a decade I know the answer.

Examining the medical records back to the 50's, one of the first suspected cases of HIV in the US was a heterosexual man that worked on transcontinental ships. He made a lot of stops in Africa and had a lot of unprotected sex with hookers in port.

Chances are he was not the only American to do so. Some could have been gay or bisexual and then with multiple carriers that could possibly swing both ways it spread from there.

In which community in the United States did the AIDS virus hit the hardest originally?

As far as the media reported the Gay community, specifically gay men. The truth however is that heterosexuals have always been the hardest hit by HIV/AIDS if for nothing more than there are so many times more straight folks than there are gays. The proportion of gay males with HIV is higher not necessarily due to promiscuity or homosexuality, rather that chance of transmission is much higher with anal sex.

It has been a few years since I have worked in the field but as of 2008, by far and away nothing else even coming close, the largest growing segment of the HIV population was black heterosexual females.

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 19:46
And yet god, in his infinite wisdom, didn't foresee when he was dictating the bible that that might be misconstrued to mean "for you to have sex with"?

I certainly take it that way.

Also, the image this conjures up of virgin check execution squads is just F-ed up, man. Royally F-ed up.

And how can you judge such a thing without an objective moral code?

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 19:51
That would be a no on sharing the Bible passage supporting your position then? Perhaps you could explain how I've taken it out of context. Don't feel the need to spare my feelings.

It is the same as if you were to quote me something nonsequitor and tell me it means flying clowns, and then demand I find out a passage that refutes flying clowns then I would be hard pressed to do so.

The context which I have gained from it is that virginal women would not have a cultural attachment to any man of the destroyed army/civilization and therefore would not create an issue later on.

I really don't see any implication of sexual intercourse, rather that of purity and a lack of attachments. There is no passage in scripture advocating child sex. Sorry to disapoint you.

Also, happy Mother's Day.:supergrin:

Kingarthurhk
05-13-2012, 19:52
I would agree with one caveat. Polygamists with 15 wives/husbands or whatever combination that have 20 plus children all receiving government aid is when I have a problem with it. I don't take issue with what consenting adults do until I have to pay for it.



Having previously worked in HIV/AIDS research for nearly a decade I know the answer.

Examining the medical records back to the 50's, one of the first suspected cases of HIV in the US was a heterosexual man that worked on transcontinental ships. He made a lot of stops in Africa and had a lot of unprotected sex with hookers in port.

Chances are he was not the only American to do so. Some could have been gay or bisexual and then with multiple carriers that could possibly swing both ways it spread from there.



As far as the media reported the Gay community, specifically gay men. The truth however is that heterosexuals have always been the hardest hit by HIV/AIDS if for nothing more than there are so many times more straight folks than there are gays. The proportion of gay males with HIV is higher not necessarily due to promiscuity or homosexuality, rather that chance of transmission is much higher with anal sex.

It has been a few years since I have worked in the field but as of 2008, by far and away nothing else even coming close, the largest growing segment of the HIV population was black heterosexual females.

Going back to Gunhaver's argument of biological harm. Obviously, it has created a great deal of biological harm.

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 20:11
And how can you judge such a thing without an objective moral code?

How can you defend it with one?

ArtificialGrape
05-13-2012, 20:14
And how can you judge such a thing without an objective moral code?
So that I'm clear, you are talking about the objective moral code that instructs you on how to treat your slaves, and to put to death homosexuals, witches, fortune tellers, people who work on the Sabbath, disrespectful children, children who curse or strike a parent, women who were not virgins on their wedding night, women who were raped in town but not heard screaming... and never specifically prohibits father-daughter incest.

This is the objective moral code that you're referring to, correct?

-ArtificialGrape

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 20:15
Going back to Gunhaver's argument of biological harm. Obviously, it has created a great deal of biological harm.

Now the argument becomes, would allowing gay marriages encourage or discourage monogamy in gay males?

muscogee
05-13-2012, 20:16
Which community is known for being mongoamous? Married heterosexual couples, or homosexual couples?

Both.

muscogee
05-13-2012, 20:18
Europe. What's yours?

My point is that you don't have a point, and the answer is everyone.

juggy4711
05-13-2012, 20:21
Going back to Gunhaver's argument of biological harm. Obviously, it has created a great deal of biological harm.

So has the Sun. Besides its not like straight people do not have anal sex.

muscogee
05-13-2012, 20:30
Where are these monogamous gays?

One lives the next block over from me. They have been together over 20 years and have a 14 year old daughter.

My uncle and his partner used to be but they died. Sorry to disappoint you, but my uncle died in his late seventies from diabetes related complication and his partner died in his late sixties from heart failure. No weird exotic "homosexual diseases". The were together over 30 years. That's longer than many heterosexual marriages.

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 22:58
It is the same as if you were to quote me something nonsequitor and tell me it means flying clowns, and then demand I find out a passage that refutes flying clowns then I would be hard pressed to do so. What's a non-sequitor about the passage I'm quoting? It's about keeping virgin girls for themselves.
The context which I have gained from it is that virginal women would not have a cultural attachment to any man of the destroyed army/civilization and therefore would not create an issue later on. How do you reach that conclusion? Did you not have any attachment to your family or nation before you started having sex? Connecting those two things seem much more of a non-sequitor.
I really don't see any implication of sexual intercourse, Perhaps you don't, but rabbis and theological scholars throughout the centuries certainly have.
rather that of purity and a lack of attachments. There is no passage in scripture advocating child sex. Sorry to disapoint you. Not that only advocating stealing children and genocide is really an improvement, but there are other examples of female virgins being taken and turned over to forced marriage (Judges 21:7-11). You've already admitted you don't have any scriptural basis in opposition to the interpretation I've offered. Do you have one that opposes forced marriage for captured women or sets a minimum age for marriage?

Animal Mother
05-13-2012, 23:02
So that I'm clear, you are talking about the objective moral code that instructs you on how to treat your slaves, and to put to death homosexuals, witches, fortune tellers, people who work on the Sabbath, disrespectful children, children who curse or strike a parent, women who were not virgins on their wedding night, women who were raped in town but not heard screaming... and never specifically prohibits father-daughter incest.

This is the objective moral code that you're referring to, correct?

-ArtificialGrape
That isn't an objective moral code. At best it's the subjective moral code of the supposed deity who wrote the Bible. More likely, it's the moral code of pre-literate, nomadic goat herders.

Paul7
05-14-2012, 10:19
So that I'm clear, you are talking about the objective moral code that instructs you on how to treat your slaves, and to put to death homosexuals, witches, fortune tellers, people who work on the Sabbath, disrespectful children, children who curse or strike a parent, women who were not virgins on their wedding night, women who were raped in town but not heard screaming... and never specifically prohibits father-daughter incest.

This is the objective moral code that you're referring to, correct?

-ArtificialGrape

The moral code expressed in the Ten Commandments, which were reinforced in the NT, not the ceremonial and dietary laws pertaining to the OT theocracy of Israel. The list you mention did not even apply to surrounding contemporary nations to OT Israel. Context is everything, atheists seem to regularly out of ignorance or deliberately, get that one wrong.

Kingarthurhk
05-14-2012, 16:46
Both.

Statisc?

Kingarthurhk
05-14-2012, 16:47
What's a non-sequitor about the passage I'm quoting? It's about keeping virgin girls for themselves.
How do you reach that conclusion? Did you not have any attachment to your family or nation before you started having sex? Connecting those two things seem much more of a non-sequitor.
Perhaps you don't, but rabbis and theological scholars throughout the centuries certainly have.
Not that only advocating stealing children and genocide is really an improvement, but there are other examples of female virgins being taken and turned over to forced marriage (Judges 21:7-11). You've already admitted you don't have any scriptural basis in opposition to the interpretation I've offered. Do you have one that opposes forced marriage for captured women or sets a minimum age for marriage?

Mother's day is over. The bible is very specific and explicit about sex in a very frank and open way. If children were being violated it would be documented. The only child sexual exploitation is ocurring in your mind. It makes me wonder what goes on in there?

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 17:13
Mother's day is over. The bible is very specific and explicit about sex in a very frank and open way. Then you should have no problem pointing out the passages that forbid enslaving children or captured girls.
If children were being violated it would be documented. It is, do you need me to quote those passages again.
The only child sexual exploitation is ocurring in your mind. It makes me wonder what goes on in there?If that were true, I'd be the only one holding this position, I'm not. In fact, you seem to be willfully blind to the clear meaning of the Bible you supposedly revere. Why is that?

steveksux
05-14-2012, 17:25
"keep alive for yourselves" seems to preclude letting them go free.
The best case scenario is forced marriage to the people who slaughtered their families. How is that functionally different than sex slavery?That's easy. Because you're forcing her to marry you, so you're forcing her to have sex against her will with you as her HUSBAND, which is part of her duties as a wife anyway as opposed to a prisoner of war.

That about cover it?

Randy

juggy4711
05-14-2012, 18:49
That's easy. Because you're forcing her to marry you, so you're forcing her to have sex against her will with you as her HUSBAND, which is part of her duties as a wife anyway as opposed to a prisoner of war.

That about cover it?

Randy

WTF? :faint:

steveksux
05-14-2012, 19:08
WTF? :faint:Might be a little sarcasm sprinkled in there somewhere...

Randy

Kingarthurhk
05-14-2012, 19:13
Then you should have no problem pointing out the passages that forbid enslaving children or captured girls.
It is, do you need me to quote those passages again.
If that were true, I'd be the only one holding this position, I'm not. In fact, you seem to be willfully blind to the clear meaning of the Bible you supposedly revere. Why is that?

I am willfully blind to what isn't there. Please find me a passage anywhere in scripture that specifically says that raping children is permissable, and then you might have paoint. You didn't, you can't.

juggy4711
05-14-2012, 19:34
Might be a little sarcasm sprinkled in there somewhere...

Randy

Missed it. My bad. :embarassed:

JK-linux
05-14-2012, 20:05
.....

ArtificialGrape
05-14-2012, 20:44
The list you mention did not even apply to surrounding contemporary nations to OT Israel. Context is everything, atheists seem to regularly out of ignorance or deliberately, get that one wrong.

How one treats their slaves, and the putting to death homosexuals, witches, fortune tellers, people who work on the Sabbath, disrespectful children, children who curse or strike a parent, women who were not virgins on their wedding night, women who were raped in town but not heard screaming... are clearly within the realm of morality.

Your argument that the morality did not apply for all people/times just supports the position that God's morality is not objective. God wants some people to kill homosexuals, but not others. Some people should kill women who were not virgins on their wedding night, but others can let it slide. Some people are instructed to kill children that curse them while I suppose others should just put their kids in a time out.

Thanks for clarifying God's objective morality.

-ArtificialGrape

Animal Mother
05-14-2012, 21:14
I am willfully blind to what isn't there. Please find me a passage anywhere in scripture that specifically says that raping children is permissable, and then you might have paoint. You didn't, you can't.I already have, twice now. One more time, for the slow kid in the crown:
[INDENT]Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

Children=children, in this case female children that have not known a man by lying with him.

for yourselves=as your property, that is to say slaves.

Gunhaver
05-14-2012, 21:31
Going back to Gunhaver's argument of biological harm. Obviously, it has created a great deal of biological harm.

You seem to be ignoring the argument that marriage encourages monogamy and monogamy decreases the transmission of HIV. You can go ahead and admit that your desire to see that homosexuals aren't treated as equals in the eyes of government is greater than your desire to see a reduction in the spread of HIV but don't keep making the case that homosexuality the same as incest because it causes biological harm when the idea you're so opposed to would decrease that harm.

juggy4711
05-14-2012, 22:56
You seem to be ignoring the argument that marriage encourages monogamy and monogamy decreases the transmission of HIV. You can go ahead and admit that your desire to see that homosexuals aren't treated as equals in the eyes of government is greater than your desire to see a reduction in the spread of HIV but don't keep making the case that homosexuality the same as incest because it causes biological harm when the idea you're so opposed to would decrease that harm.

If he was really concerned with the spread of HIV his greatest concern would not be gay folks doing what gay folks do. It would be for heterosexual black females.

Mother's day is over. The bible is very specific and explicit about sex in a very frank and open way. If children were being violated it would be documented. The only child sexual exploitation is ocurring in your mind. It makes me wonder what goes on in there?

At the time the Bible was written what age did a girl need to be before it was ok to have sex with them? History must be looked at in perspective. It's not like females magically become attractive when they turn 18, however a lot of society has decided that is the age when it is "legal" for them to have consensual intercourse. Personally I find that to be a decent and just line.

To pretend that was the case in the OT or the NT is ridiculous. The Bible is full of sexual deviance by today's standards.

Kingarthurhk
05-15-2012, 16:13
I already have, twice now. One more time, for the slow kid in the crown:[INDENT]Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

Children=children, in this case female children that have not known a man by lying with him.

for yourselves=as your property, that is to say slaves.

I will repeat this S-L-O-W-L-Y so you can understand this. There is no mention of any of the Israelites having sex with children as you are desperately trying to imply. They kept aliens within their community, and then incorporated them within their society.

Your need for them to fall upon children sexually is just disbturbing.

Kingarthurhk
05-15-2012, 16:14
If he was really concerned with the spread of HIV his greatest concern would not be gay folks doing what gay folks do. It would be for heterosexual black females.



At the time the Bible was written what age did a girl need to be before it was ok to have sex with them? History must be looked at in perspective. It's not like females magically become attractive when they turn 18, however a lot of society has decided that is the age when it is "legal" for them to have consensual intercourse. Personally I find that to be a decent and just line.

To pretend that was the case in the OT or the NT is ridiculous. The Bible is full of sexual deviance by today's standards.

And when it is, it is very graphically recorded without inferences.