1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Putting the errors to rest

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by Pah, Oct 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason Doctor of Thinkology

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    7,678
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    Emu - I'm a little disappointed in you. Invoking a group like NAMBLA to try to make your point in regards to gays and lesbians marrying is incredibly weak. Since I refuse to invoke the Bible to hold my point, I will do so on the rational and logical level (not stooping to an appeal to emotion).
    No one here has argued for the rights of a group like NAMBLA for a very simple reason - it is a group of adults that exploits children. Since children are incapapable of consent, the very premise of NAMBLA is rejected. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are aware of this, hence my dissapointment in your statement. And like you, we are all disgusted with the actions of a group like NAMBLA.

    As far as group marriages are concerned, I couldn't care less (assuming that all involved are consenting adults). My marriage is perfectly safe and will not suffer one iota from a group of consenting adults that decide to co-habitate and seek the sanction of the state to do so. Then again, maybe others would feel threatened because their marriages aren't built on as solid ground as mine.

    Incestuous relationships are an extreme minority (and since both of us hail from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, we know what a bad stigma that can be).

    Your argument against polygamy is rather ironic - since it is practiced in North America on religious grounds.

    Lastly, I would venture that anyone expressing their love through marriage is on shaky ground. My love for my wife and family is not built on the fact that we are married - rather the marriage affords us social acceptance and legal rights that we would not otherwise enjoy. If you want to express your love for someone, I would hope that you do it every day, all day, and unceasingly. My son is twelve years old, in middle school and plays sports year round (surrounded by his friends). No matter where we are, no matter who else is present, no matter what anyone else thinks, I tell him "I love you" a hundred times a day. He understands that, and he has been raised to appreciate what love really means. No paper contract between my wife and I means squat to me (other than the legal ramifications). If we ever cease to love one another, that piece of paper will not hold us together.

    Dissapointedly,
    TVOR
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,470
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    Religion:
    Christian
    If you call someone a bigot for not believing you have a right to marry, while on the other hand claim that others (who think they should be able to be married) should not have the right to marry, you too are a bigot in your own use of the term.

    What if they agreed not to have children(even went so far as to be sterilized), and it is not a cetainty that they will have a "harmed" child.
     
  3. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    Untrue.
    I`m not basing my opposition to pedophilia on anyones right to marry.
    I`m basing my opposition to pedophilia on the harm it causes a child.
    To be able to marry one must be able to consent.
    I don`t believe a child can consent.
    It is not bigotry to wish to keep perverts from harming children.



    Go for it.
    If no one is harmed in any way..have at it.
    I`ll sing at the wedding. (nevermind, that might be harmful)

    Although it is not a certainty an incestuous child would be harmed it is possible and for that reason I won`t condone it.
    I could change my mind if I were to find that the stats show harm greatly unlikely.
     
  4. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,470
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    Religion:
    Christian
    I am sorry about this, I should not have brought what I consider a vile association into this.

    Ok

    So you believe they have a right to marriage?

    You mean that your marriage wasn't an expression of your love for one another? That is what I meant, not that the piece of paper meant that you did or didn't love the person, but that it was one more way to express the love you share for your partner.

    The word bigot has been used recently to describe Christians that are against homosexuality, I believe it is a sin, so it seems to me people are(maybe inadvertenly) calling me a bigot. This kind of got to me, and that was a result. Will not happen again.

    (Just to clarify, while in a way I am against same-sex marriage, because I beleive Homosexuality is a sin, I think it is people's lives to live.)
     
  5. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason Doctor of Thinkology

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    7,678
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    Actually, I was trying to inject a little levity (hence the reference to our being from KY), but I really haven't given any thought to the possibility of an incestuous marriage. Let me ruminate on that for a bit, and I'll get back to you. Shooting from the hip, I'd say that anything closer than first cousins is a health risk to the offspring, but I'm only going on what I was told as a child. Maybe the long answer will involve at what distance of relationship the term "incestuous" is no longer applicable.

    I apologize - I misunderstood your point. In this context, yes my marriage is an expression of my love for my wife - but it is a small one compared to the way I act around her, how I treat her, and my actions that effect her. Again, I apologize for misunderstanding.

    This has come up in another thread this very evening - no one is taking the position that your Christian beliefs are making you a bigot. One acheives the status of bigot based on whether they attack a group of people (without a legitimate reason - i.e. NAMBLA) simply because they are different.

    TVOR
     
  6. Bastet

    Bastet Vile Stove-Toucher

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    5,555
    Ratings:
    +606
    And yet, you would seek to deny homosexual couples the ability to express the love they share for their partner in this same manner.
    Far too many people I have come across on this board (and other places), consider homosexual couples to be merely "in lust". This is simply not true. Yes, there are homosexual couples who have relationships based solely on sex - but there are heterosexual couples who do the same. Yes, there are homosexual people who indiscriminately sleep around - but again, there are heterosexual people who do the same. No relationship (gay or straight), that is based solely on sex, will last. That's a fact, plain and simple. But to assume that everyone who is gay, is only interested in sex, is just ridiculous.
    So your bible tells you homosexuality is a sin - but, as I know has already been pointed out, not everyone in the world (or even on this forum), shares your religion or your view. If we're wrong, we'll find out, and you won't be any the worse for wear (you can even shake your finger and say "I told you so!"). If we're not wrong, then we've spent our lifetimes being treated as second class citizens, because some people took the word of a dusty old book of dubious origins, and made it law. Can you live with that?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Don't talk to me about the killing of children. Does the first born of Egypt ring a bell? Understand your own house is dirty before you look to another's

    It seems that your God is all in favor of killing children. In how many conquests did he order the complete killing of all males? - how many were the complete annihilation of the whole nation? We do it as a species whether God directs us or not. We share that nature with all animals and it is no longer a dirty little secret.

    Now then, perhaps you want to consider the morality of killing children and abusing them. We disapprove of that act because it harms another. Homosexuality does not nor does it amongst the hundreds of documented species in which it occurs.


    It's not that simple and, in fact, a misleading statement. We call some one a bigot because they focus on a behavior - something quite physical. Those of us who support homosexual marriage do not see anything wrong in the the old, outdated concept of marriage.

    You speak of ideas and that is not the target of bigots.



    You insult us!! and that makes me sick when you speak of incest and pedophilia as if that goes with homosexuality.

    Polygamy I will argue for - it has a tradition right back to the Bible and I don't hear you saying the Bible is corrupt. This is one "slippery slope" that will happen in spite of the reluctance of some Christians.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,470
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    Religion:
    Christian
    I guess this was a bit ambiguous, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, it is up to a person to make that choice and it is a person's life to live.

    God is not human. Everything He does is righteous. He gave the pharoah multiple chances, that he rejected. The people of egypt were evil and wanted to keep their slaves.

    The one true God is all in favor of making sure that His people survive unstained.

    I do not believe the killing of children is proper, and in no way shape or form do I believe it is moral to abuse them.

    In none of your cases were the people's own offspring killed(which is what I was reffering to), and I was pointing out that just because other animals do it doesn't make it natural for all animals

    I did not try to insult anyone sorry, and I did not try to lump you together with incest and pedophilia, I was merely trying to point out that both groups(I chose those sepcific because I though that almost everyone would agree they are "bad") would use the same arguements as homosexuals, namely that it is love.
     
  9. Bastet

    Bastet Vile Stove-Toucher

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    5,555
    Ratings:
    +606
    Where is the ambiguity there? You believe it is a person's life to live, yet you are against something that is, for many, a very large part of that life. Or it would be, were it legal.
     
  10. Bastet

    Bastet Vile Stove-Toucher

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    5,555
    Ratings:
    +606
    By your own admission, you consider homosexuality to be "bad". Therefore, you have lumped us together with incest and paedophilia when trying to use this inane "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage...whether you were trying be insulting or not. And, in case it's not completely obvious to you, "almost everyone" does not agree on whether homosexuality is "good" or "bad".
     
  11. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Mr. Emu,

    I'm not going to argue the character of God in this thread.

    I guess that's the problem with some moral systems, they tend to lump all immoral acts together. And that is the beauty of Constitutional rule in that it does not. It relies on the recognition of rights and the freedoms that come from them for those able to partake of them. That covers the aspect of consent.

    Incest, however, is prohibited because the state was found to have a legitimate interest in preserving the health of those in their constituency.

    Two Constitutional principles that make the "slippery slope" argument no more than bunkum. It can logically understand much more than an ascetic moral code.

    -pah-
     
  12. Paraprakrti

    Paraprakrti Custom User

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +53


    • And no one is infringing on anyone's right to "choice of mate". The right to marriage is reserved for two members of the opposite sex in the same way the right to procreate is reserved for... two members of the opposite sex.

      On a side note, I personally disagree with how marriage is taken even by the heterosexuals. Since marriage is often taken as an institution of lust, homosexuality will fit right in. Let them have it. It makes no difference.


      I think what this person may have been trying to say is that the female and male bodies compliment each other in that only in this arrangement is it possible to reproduce.
      Of course, if your parents had not reproduced you would not be here to defend a lifestyle that engages in a sexual act that is condemned from reproduction. The fact that everyone's existence is dependent on heterosexual engagement should invariably show the precedence heterosexuality has over homosexuality. For it was not homosexuality that your birth was dependent on.


      1. Then the value of the law is in question.
      2. Then the value of the law is in question.
      3. Her definition of "natural" includes the natural ability to procreate. The point that homosexuality may be found throughout nature just shows that many creatures are naturally attracted to the rubbing of the genitals upon whatever will give them gratification. If this is our justification, then your consent is valueless as I unhesitatingly send you to a slaughterhouse. I am sure we can find good use for your animal meat and hide.


      It is more a case of deviation, not being undone. God has no necessity to flex His power "under the law". Free will is also a factor of Christianity.


      Then the state's interest is in question. The argument is not about what the state is doing or what they are interested in; it is about what the state should be doing, what they should be interested in.


      Where is your rebuttal? The point that homosexuals reproduce at 50 to 75% the rate of heterosexuals has nothing to do with the fact that in order for them to reproduce "a third party must be brought into the relationship".


      I think the point she is trying to make is that although sex is only meant for marriage, marriage is not only meant for sex.


      I understand her concern, but I don't have as much compassion for the pro-heterosexual point of view when it is itself degraded.


      Herein she backs up my suggestion that she means to say that marriage is not merely for sex.


    This is where I agree with your point.
     
  13. Feathers in Hair

    Feathers in Hair World's Tallest Hobbit

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    14,605
    Ratings:
    +1,796
    Wow... Just... wow.


    If I ever get married, whereever it says 'matrimony' on the certificate, I'm gonna use White-out and insert 'institution of lust.' It's just so much more romantic! *sniffles*

    I remember the post wherein you encouraged Gerani to try to drink poison in the context of debate. This method of debate is borderline threatening and demeaning to all who are posting here. Please refrain from it in the future.
     
  14. meogi

    meogi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,010
    Ratings:
    +110
    Just so we got that in here... it's part 4 we're wanting changed. Mainly the 'legal force' part.


    So why are you arguing against gay-marriage laws?

    That statement alone supports everything we've said. It makes no difference.
     
  15. Bastet

    Bastet Vile Stove-Toucher

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    5,555
    Ratings:
    +606
    He's not so much anti gay-marriage, as anti lust. :rolleyes: As if gays corner the market on that or something... :bonk:
     
  16. Jaymes

    Jaymes The cake is a lie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,759
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    ... crap, they've found us out?! :retarded:
     
  17. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    I for one won`t stand for it.
    You can take my heterosexual right to lust when you can pry my viagra prescription from my cold dead fingers!!

    He gave the Pharoah no chance as everytime the Pharoh started to loosen up God intentionally hardened his heart
    Not that it matters.
    The statement that ALL the people of egypt were evil is fallacy.
    Newborn children cannot be evil and those were your Gods only target.
    God did not destroy all those babies because of slavery thats a strawman and a bad one.
    Your god condones slavery and even sets rules for it`s existence.
    By that logic the Hebrews should have been killed themselves at a later date.

    Then step aside and let them live it.

    Thats the point.
    I`m not HIS people and never will be so as I said in another thread it`s morally fine for me to be slaughtered at the hands of your rightious god.
    God discriminates on the basis of culture and that makes him immoral.

    Yet you worship a god that orders the killing of children.
    Therefore by your own standards your god is immoral.

    It`s clear to me now.
    It`s bad to kill the children of your own culture but it`s just fine to kill the children of another culture.
    Thats not immoral?

    Give up Mr.Emu you cannot harmonize your gods penchent for child killing.
    If you do you destroy your gods omnipotence.
    It`s a lose/lose situation for God.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Paraprakrti

    Paraprakrti Custom User

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +53
    That was an example of how it is foolish to use activities of a superior being in justifying our activities. What I said was completely reasonable as well as effective to making my point. You really have nothing to do with it.


    I am not making threats, I am making points. I am sorry you can't see it.
     
  19. Paraprakrti

    Paraprakrti Custom User

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +53
    I am not so passionately against gay-marriage when so many straight-marriages are corrupt. Though, the tendency others have to rationalize gay marriage does provoke me to debate.

    It only makes no difference because everything is already so degraded. If we are going to blame the homosexuals, we have to blame the heterosexuals first.
     
  20. Jaymes

    Jaymes The cake is a lie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,759
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    You refusing to admit to something does not mean we can't see what you're saying.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...