RE: Homosexuality Article (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message


essentialsaltes -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/3/2008 6:47:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

As long as I am a believer that won't be possible. I cannot approve of something God calls evil.


Do you approve of adultery? Most states have decriminalized adultery, but I don't hear much outrage about that. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to approve of it.




Marcus. -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/3/2008 7:32:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

Do you approve of adultery? Most states have decriminalized adultery, but I don't hear much outrage about that. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to approve of it.


No and I'm not having much success with my representatives getting it criminalized either. When you see the devastation that adultery causes I don't see how anyone could not be for recriminalizing it.




essentialsaltes -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/3/2008 8:21:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.
When you see the devastation that adultery causes I don't see how anyone could not be for recriminalizing it.


Will putting someone in jail bring a marriage closer together?

Surely some quality time with a marriage counselor or pastor would be more constructive than government intrusion into a family matter.




Marcus. -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/3/2008 8:50:00 PM)

Answering this in the Divorce One Stop Thread so we don't hijack this thread.




Bluethread -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 3:35:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

As society changed, we changed the laws regarding marriage. I'm sure there were conservatives who bemoaned the fact that these newfangled laws were changing traditional marriage, and that God had commanded that man be the head of his wife. But these laws didn't change any bibles or change any religions. They just changed the laws of society in order to better reflect the shared values of that society. In the future, society will continue to change laws in that fashion.


NAMBLA is condemned by GLAAD and other gay rights organizations. Regardless, gay marriage still requires adults to sign the marriage license (or minors with their parents' approval). Gay marriage has nothing to do with pedophilia.


Why so judgemental. On what basis do you judge a man and a boy being "in love"? Shouldn't the government protect the rights of these two to make life and death decisions for one another and inherit their joint belongings. Also, by what standard do you say they are incapable of raising a child? On what do you suggest we base our laws?




Veritas -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 10:00:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

As society changed, we changed the laws regarding marriage. I'm sure there were conservatives who bemoaned the fact that these newfangled laws were changing traditional marriage, and that God had commanded that man be the head of his wife. But these laws didn't change any bibles or change any religions. They just changed the laws of society in order to better reflect the shared values of that society. In the future, society will continue to change laws in that fashion.


NAMBLA is condemned by GLAAD and other gay rights organizations. Regardless, gay marriage still requires adults to sign the marriage license (or minors with their parents' approval). Gay marriage has nothing to do with pedophilia.


Why so judgemental. On what basis do you judge a man and a boy being "in love"? Shouldn't the government protect the rights of these two to make life and death decisions for one another and inherit their joint belongings. Also, by what standard do you say they are incapable of raising a child? On what do you suggest we base our laws?

Marriage is a contract. Children, animals and inanimate objects cannot enter into contracts.

As it stands now, children can enter into marriage with their parents' permission.




Jhud -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 12:47:36 PM)

quote:

Marriage is a contract. Children, animals and inanimate objects cannot enter into contracts.

As it stands now, children can enter into marriage with their parents' permission.


Actually, many pedophiles argue that children do indeed have the wherewithal to justify such decisions, and of course, some people believe some animals have the same cognitive abilities to have a relationship with a human.




zamdad -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 12:51:01 PM)

quote:

Marriage is a contract. Children, animals and inanimate objects cannot enter into contracts.

As it stands now, children can enter into marriage with their parents' permission.


Mariiage is a covenenat, not a contract, but that's a seperate issue. As you know, law changes. From the beginning of time marriage has been between one man and one woman. Some supreme court justices have decided that these contracts can be revamped to allow the union of two men or two women. Poligamists are lining up to allow marriage to include multiple spouses. NAMBLA is waiting in the wings to legitimze sexual relationships between children and adults.

When some supreme court justice who thinks he/she is one day older than God and twice as smart uses a stroke of the pen to change the landscape of the culture is left open, we're open to anything.




essentialsaltes -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 2:49:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, many pedophiles argue that children do indeed have the wherewithal to justify such decisions, and of course, some people believe some animals have the same cognitive abilities to have a relationship with a human.


Bully for them, but their arguments have no force of law. When they start a ballot initiative to change the age of consent to 5 or to accept a hoof print as a valid signature for a contract, I'll be right alongside you to vote it down.




Jhud -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 2:58:51 PM)

quote:

Bully for them, but their arguments have no force of law. When they start a ballot initiative to change the age of consent to 5 or to accept a hoof print as a valid signature for a contract, I'll be right alongside you to vote it down.


On what basis?




essentialsaltes -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 3:05:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad
From the beginning of time marriage has been between one man and one woman.


This is obviously false. There have been and still are plenty of societies that recognize polygamous marriages.

No one's voting on whether the gods recognize gay marriage, just on whether the state should recognize them. You say yourself, "As you know, law changes." That's right, and in our democracy, we have rules for how laws get changed. Two hundred years ago, wives couldn't own property. As society progressed, those laws were changed. We're on the cusp of a similar change in marriage today. Changing our laws won't change your God. Nobody's trying to do that.

I have no problem with anyone voting their conscience on this issue. But as you recognize yourself, laws change. There is nothing immutable about the definition of marriage as a legal matter. If you don't like that, you don't like democracy.




essentialsaltes -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 3:06:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Bully for them, but their arguments have no force of law. When they start a ballot initiative to change the age of consent to 5 or to accept a hoof print as a valid signature for a contract, I'll be right alongside you to vote it down.


On what basis?


My subjective morality. It's all I've got, but it works pretty well.




Jhud -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 3:08:49 PM)

quote:

My subjective morality. It's all I've got, but it works pretty well.


Well then I am not sure why my arguments against gay marriage aren't equally valid.




essentialsaltes -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 5:21:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well then I am not sure why my arguments against gay marriage aren't equally valid.


I already said "I have no problem with anyone voting their conscience on this issue."

You have your right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts or logic. The fact that pederasts want to legalize pederasty does not change the fact that children cannot sign a marriage license, and same-sex marriage will not affect this in any way.




Bluethread -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 6:13:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, many pedophiles argue that children do indeed have the wherewithal to justify such decisions, and of course, some people believe some animals have the same cognitive abilities to have a relationship with a human.


Bully for them, but their arguments have no force of law. When they start a ballot initiative to change the age of consent to 5 or to accept a hoof print as a valid signature for a contract, I'll be right alongside you to vote it down.


Then you believe the decision of the supreme court you quoted above as an example of oppressive government was perfectly moral at the time?

Also, on what basis do you say this is progress and not regress.




Jhud -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 6:16:52 PM)

quote:

I already said "I have no problem with anyone voting their conscience on this issue."

You have your right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts or logic. The fact that pederasts want to legalize pederasty does not change the fact that children cannot sign a marriage license, and same-sex marriage will not affect this in any way.


Well, homosexuals do not have the right to sign marriage licenses in most of the states of this union either; but that would be the point of this exercise; based on your logic, there is no reason either of these circumstances couldn't change.




Bluethread -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 6:17:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well then I am not sure why my arguments against gay marriage aren't equally valid.


I already said "I have no problem with anyone voting their conscience on this issue."

You have your right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts or logic. The fact that pederasts want to legalize pederasty does not change the fact that children cannot sign a marriage license, and same-sex marriage will not affect this in any way.


If the pederasts have their way it will? Also, your last statement is not fact, nor a logical conclusion, but personal opinion.




essentialsaltes -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 7:05:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, homosexuals do not have the right to sign marriage licenses in most of the states of this union either; but that would be the point of this exercise; based on your logic, there is no reason either of these circumstances couldn't change.


That is quite true in our democracy. With the passage of an appropriate law or consitutional amendment, either could change. But changing one does not change the other. I reiterate: "The fact that pederasts want to legalize pederasty does not change the fact that children cannot sign a marriage license, and same-sex marriage will not affect this in any way."

Linking them makes about as much sense as saying that giving 18-year-olds the right to vote is tantamount to banning handguns. It would take two separate amendments to get that to happen, as it would take two separate legal acts to allow same-sex marriage and pederasty.




Jhud -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 7:12:16 PM)

quote:

That is quite true in our democracy. With the passage of an appropriate law or consitutional amendment, either could change. But changing one does not change the other. I reiterate: "The fact that pederasts want to legalize pederasty does not change the fact that children cannot sign a marriage license, and same-sex marriage will not affect this in any way."

Linking them makes about as much sense as saying that giving 18-year-olds the right to vote is tantamount to banning handguns. It would take two separate amendments to get that to happen, as it would take two separate legal acts to allow same-sex marriage and pederasty.


Actually, the point of both, and how they are related is that they both represent fundamental revisions of our views about marriage and the proper human relationships marriage encompasses. To alter marriage so as to include persons of the same sex, or with one's siblings, or parents, or children, or other species would unnaturally, ahistorically, and immorally alter the the institution of marriage.

So what we are looking for here is a consistent basis for making these decisions; your view is that there isn't one; obviously, I disagree, and seek a society and law based on that consistency.




essentialsaltes -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 7:18:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well then I am not sure why my arguments against gay marriage aren't equally valid.


I already said "I have no problem with anyone voting their conscience on this issue."

You have your right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts or logic. The fact that pederasts want to legalize pederasty does not change the fact that children cannot sign a marriage license, and same-sex marriage will not affect this in any way.


If the pederasts have their way it will?


If the pederasts convince voters to pass laws or amendments that legalize pederasty, then pederasty will be legal. That's unlikely, but it's a natural consequence of a democracy. The legalization of same-sex marriage neither helps nor hinders the pederasts in their struggle to legalize pederasty. They are separate issues.

quote:

Also, your last statement is not fact, nor a logical conclusion, but personal opinion.


It is a logical conclusion, based on the actual state of legal same-sex marriage in California and elsewhere. Currently, "Party A" and "Party B" on a marriage license can be any gender; the court decision did nothing to change any other requirements for being able to sign a marriage license, e.g. being an adult.




essentialsaltes -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 7:21:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
To alter marriage so as to include persons of the same sex, or with one's siblings, or parents, or children, or other species would unnaturally, ahistorically, and immorally alter the the institution of marriage.


(Shakes head Reaganesquely): 'There you go again!'

quote:

So what we are looking for here is a consistent basis for making these decisions; your view is that there isn't one; obviously, I disagree, and seek a society and law based on that consistency.


Since we live in a society in which laws can be changed by popular vote, you will have to seek elsewhere for that consistency.




Bluethread -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 7:57:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

It is a logical conclusion, based on the actual state of legal same-sex marriage in California and elsewhere. Currently, "Party A" and "Party B" on a marriage license can be any gender; the court decision did nothing to change any other requirements for being able to sign a marriage license, e.g. being an adult.


I didn't think we were talking about a specific piece of legislation, but a principle on which we as individuals can decide what should or should not be law.




Veritas -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 8:39:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad

quote:

Marriage is a contract. Children, animals and inanimate objects cannot enter into contracts.

As it stands now, children can enter into marriage with their parents' permission.


Mariiage is a covenenat, not a contract, but that's a seperate issue. As you know, law changes. From the beginning of time marriage has been between one man and one woman. Some supreme court justices have decided that these contracts can be revamped to allow the union of two men or two women. Poligamists are lining up to allow marriage to include multiple spouses. NAMBLA is waiting in the wings to legitimze sexual relationships between children and adults.

When some supreme court justice who thinks he/she is one day older than God and twice as smart uses a stroke of the pen to change the landscape of the culture is left open, we're open to anything.

The covenant of marriage is a separate issue from the legal concept of marriage. As far as the law is concerned, marriage is a contract.

Yes, the law changes. At one time both parties had to be the same race in order to enter into a marriage.

It is not true that " From the beginning of time marriage has been between one man and one woman" King David had more than one wife, as did several other men in the Old Testament.

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with polygamy or relationships between children and adults.




SovereignIsHe -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 9:10:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

NAMBLA is condemned by GLAAD and other gay rights organizations. Regardless, gay marriage still requires adults to sign the marriage license (or minors with their parents' approval). Gay marriage has nothing to do with pedophilia.


NAMBLA was eventually condemned....




zamdad -> RE: Homosexuality Article (11/4/2008 9:50:24 PM)

quote:

essentialsaltes
This is obviously false. There have been and still are plenty of societies that recognize polygamous marriages.


But, in this society the courts and the legislature have determined that marriage is between one man and one woman. As I said, the poliygamists are waiting in the wings to bring their cases before the court to get the law changed in their favor.

quote:

The fact that pederasts want to legalize pederasty does not change the fact that children cannot sign a marriage license, and same-sex marriage will not affect this in any way.


Who's to say that some legislators will not propose legislation to lower the age of consent? Or, that some judge who likes young boys might rule to lower the age of consent?

Look, I know the law changes. Sometimes change is good. Other times it's not good. The changes being proposed are not good for anyone involved.




Page: <<   < prev  102 103 [104] 105 106   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI