100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Pat Robertson warns God will destroy America over same sex m | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
which is why I say, barring some constitutional guarantee that the government has a right to regulate 'potential' birth defects in children incestuous marriages will probably be next in our culture ,,,uncle dad and aunty mom might become staples for our kids,,,YAY! So? If there were no birth defects associated with that, then what would be wrong with it? What's fundamentally wrong with people who are closely related genetically to fall in love? Personally I think that would be rather rare. Most people have no desire to marry their own sisters or brothers. But my point is, if there were no genetic problems with that arrangement then what's wrong with it?  I would argue that siblings should already be allowed to marry under certain circumstances. As I've already said, if one of them is sterile and unable to procreate and they plan on adopting, then what's the problem? In fact, with today's medical abilities they could ask to be made "sterile" if their true intention is to adopt. Or maybe they aren't even interested in raising kids at all. Who knows? But yes, remove the potential for genetic defects in closely related people and I have no problem at all with "uncle dad, and aunt mom". It's no biggy. So my parents are also brother and sister? So what? What's wrong with that? Why should that be "immoral"?  Please tell me what is so "immoral" about that? It seems to me that the only real argument that can be given is because - "Well according to Hebrew folklore God doesn't approve of it".  That's not a satisfying answer for me. I see no reason why it should be immoral for closely related people to fall in love and marry. If this "God" hadn't been so evil in the first place to design genetics to be so disgusting as to cause birth defects in closely related humans then there wouldn't be a problem with it at all. The mere fact that genetics works out to be like that doesn't say much for a supposedly all-benevolent God. This is why some people are atheists. They see this as just being a result of evolution and nothing more. Why would an all-wise all-benevolent God be pulling dirty rotten stunts like that in the first place? Causing innocent babies to be born grossly defective just because two siblings happened to fall in LOVE with each other?  Where is there any LOVE and compassion in that? Please, explain that one to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 07/02/11 12:53 PM
|
|
which is why I say, barring some constitutional guarantee that the government has a right to regulate 'potential' birth defects in children incestuous marriages will probably be next in our culture ,,,uncle dad and aunty mom might become staples for our kids,,,YAY! So? If there were no birth defects associated with that, then what would be wrong with it? What's fundamentally wrong with people who are closely related genetically to fall in love? Personally I think that would be rather rare. Most people have no desire to marry their own sisters or brothers. But my point is, if there were no genetic problems with that arrangement then what's wrong with it? I would argue that siblings should already be allowed to marry under certain circumstances. As I've already said, if one of them is sterile and unable to procreate and they plan on adopting, then what's the problem? In fact, with today's medical abilities they could ask to be made "sterile" if their true intention is to adopt. Or maybe they aren't even interested in raising kids at all. Who knows? But yes, remove the potential for genetic defects in closely related people and I have no problem at all with "uncle dad, and aunt mom". It's no biggy. So my parents are also brother and sister? So what? What's wrong with that? Why should that be "immoral"? Please tell me what is so "immoral" about that? It seems to me that the only real argument that can be given is because - "Well according to Hebrew folklore God doesn't approve of it". That's not a satisfying answer for me. I see no reason why it should be immoral for closely related people to fall in love and marry. If this "God" hadn't been so evil in the first place to design genetics to be so disgusting as to cause birth defects in closely related humans then there wouldn't be a problem with it at all. The mere fact that genetics works out to be like that doesn't say much for a supposedly all-benevolent God. This is why some people are atheists. They see this as just being a result of evolution and nothing more. Why would an all-wise all-benevolent God be pulling dirty rotten stunts like that in the first place? Causing innocent babies to be born grossly defective just because two siblings happened to fall in LOVE with each other? Where is there any LOVE and compassion in that? Please, explain that one to me. genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 07/02/11 01:35 PM
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MsHarmony wrote: as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself But MsHarmony, we aren't merely talking about the lustful expression of emotional sexual acts devoid of love. We are talking about MARRIAGE between siblings remember? We're talking about having such great LOVE for one another that they want to make a public commitment before everyone that they are prepared to devote themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. So trying to side-track this into a discussion of meaningless experiences of sexual emotions of lust is misplaced. Of course, this whole side-track into sibling love and marriage is already a side-track from the actual topic of same-gender love and marriage. But why are you focusing on the SEX? We're talking about people who want to get MARRIED. Not people who just want to have sex. People who just want to have sex are probably already doing that as we type.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 07/02/11 02:09 PM
|
|
MsHarmony wrote: as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself But MsHarmony, we aren't merely talking about the lustful expression of emotional sexual acts devoid of love. We are talking about MARRIAGE between siblings remember? We're talking about having such great LOVE for one another that they want to make a public commitment before everyone that they are prepared to devote themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. So trying to side-track this into a discussion of meaningless experiences of sexual emotions of lust is misplaced. Of course, this whole side-track into sibling love and marriage is already a side-track from the actual topic of same-gender love and marriage. But why are you focusing on the SEX? We're talking about people who want to get MARRIED. Not people who just want to have sex. People who just want to have sex are probably already doing that as we type. I am merely having an intellectually honest debate about the issue at hand. Few people care or know how others might FEEL for each other, the objection is to the ACTIVITIES(lifestyle) that may or may not occur Marriage, includes in its many legal precedents and court rulings, an assumption of 'consummation' ,, which causes the act of SEX to be a real and encouraged PART of what is supported legally in MARRIAGE... this is why I object to it in terms of 'marriage', but dont object to it in terms of 'civil union' which would only deal with the commitment and not the PHYSICAL aspect which may or may not be a part of the commitment,, under a civil union, where 'sex' was in no way a consideration, ,,brothers and sisters SHOULD be able to have such a legally recognized commitment,, as should neighbors, or business partners, or any other relation between 'consenting adults' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MsHarmony wrote: this is why I object to it in terms of 'marriage', but dont object to it in terms of 'civil union' which would only deal with the commitment and not the PHYSICAL aspect which may or may not be a part of the commitment,, under a civil union, where 'sex' was in no way a consideration, ,,brothers and sisters SHOULD be able to have such a legally recognized commitment,, as should neighbors, or business partners, or any other relation between 'consenting adults' I would personally argue that in terms of a Government where there is supposed to exist a "Separation of Church and State", the very terms "Marriage" and "Civil Union" are necessarily indistinguishable. Unless the government itself had constructed technical definitions that "married" people are permitted to have offspring, whilst people who are in "Civil Unions" are not. That's about the only technical distinction that a government could come up with. Otherwise what could be the difference between "marriage" and a "civil union"? If the concept of marriage requires "religion" in any way, then it can't be a Government issue. Atheists could not even "marry" under such a definition. So it seems to me that any government that proclaims to support "Separation of Church and State" would be very hard-pressed to technically distinguish between a "marriage" and a "civil union". Where's Redykelous? I know she's heavily into the technicalities of these kinds of legal matters. Perhaps she can shed some light on the technical differences between "marriage" and "civil union" in terms of a government that supports and upholds a philosophy of "Separation of Church and State". If a "civil union" would apply to business partners, I don't see how it could be applied to a couple who want to commit themselves solely to each other. I don't believe that there would be any law against business partners becoming partners in several different businesses at the same time. If that extends to "civil unions" between individuals then it could be legally used to create polygamous relationships. And I'm sure that would get a lot of people's dander up. Better off sticking to approving marriages if you want to avoid legalizing polygamy under the laws provided by "civil unions". That could really backfire on the religious community. They better start thinking more carefully of what they support in terms of laws.  Stick with only marriage between individuals and it will be far easier to fight for monogamy when that comes down the pike. And I'm sure it will at some point. Give into "Civil Unions" between individuals and you've opened the FLOOD GATES to all sorts of strange "organized relationships" that could potentially include many different individuals. Just my thoughts for whatever they're worth.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and if same sex should not be anyones business, why should organized relationships
why should the government define marriage as between only two people at all? why should they define the biological boundaries of those parties involved at all? ,,,thats actually my point,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and if same sex should not be anyones business, why should organized relationships why should the government define marriage as between only two people at all? why should they define the biological boundaries of those parties involved at all? ,,,thats actually my point,,,, Well, that is a good point. Why should the government be in the dirty business of telling people how to live their personal lives in the first place? I agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont consider giving support to certain personal choices as 'telling' people how to live their life
I dont see encouraging positive trends as a mandate at all, the government does this in many ways, by affording certain tax breaks to parents as a way to support their choice to care for their kids and not as a way to tell them they have to by affording grants to certain causes, not to tell anyone what they have to do, but to support those that are doing something that is considered a necessary contribution,,, the same thing I see as marriage, a support of the positive trend of male female bonds making a lifetime commitment that can be a positive factor in the life of the children they may create from such a union it doesnt tell anyone they have to be in a romantic relationship , or that they have to have kids, it doesnt say your personal relationship has to be anything but what you want, it just gives SUPPORT to a certain relationship that has a significant impact upon community I would see it differently if anything were being condemned or outlawed,, but with this issue, that is not the case just my opinion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wondering how this topic went from same sex marriage between two consenting adults that are not related; to marrying family or marrying animals? Doen't make a lot of sense to me. Of course it doesn't make sense but that's what happens when there is no better justification to offer. Now that DOMA is being challenged by the DOJ as unconstitutional, it looks like all those people who fear that marriage will eventually have to be granded to a man and his dog will just have to form some good old grass roots movements to head 'em off at the pass. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will pass,, lol
I believe in consistency, so if its good for everybody who is a consenting adult, its good for everybody who is a consenting adult once the courts go there unilaterally,, theres nothing left to be done but watch the ball roll..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 07/02/11 06:10 PM
|
|
Pat Robertson,it's people like him that makes me proud i'm Atheist Yep, I too am glad that I am an Atheist. If you love someone; what does it matter if it is a same sex marriage? If you love someone, why does it matter whether the government gets involved in labeling it 'marriage',,,,? To ask that question here AGAIN, clearly indicates that you have NOT looked up any of the information that you didn't think was pertinant the last time your question was answered. Do you think the NEW people will provide you with better answers? If you REALLY care about why gays and lesbians want full marriage recognition you could look it up - it's not that hard to find. In fact look some recent news, like from this past week, Seven gay and lesbian New Jersey couples, along with many of their ... that the state's civil union law designed to give gay couples the same legal protections as married couples has not fulfilled that promise. One man says he was denied being able to make urgent medical decisions for his partner. Maybe that will help clear things up for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pat Robertson,it's people like him that makes me proud i'm Atheist Yep, I too am glad that I am an Atheist. If you love someone; what does it matter if it is a same sex marriage? If you love someone, why does it matter whether the government gets involved in labeling it 'marriage',,,,? To ask that question here AGAIN, clearly indicates that you have NOT looked up any of the information that you didn't think was pertinant the last time your question was answered. Do you think the NEW people will provide you with better answers? If you REALLY care about why gays and lesbians want full marriage recognition you could look it up - it's not that hard to find. In fact look some recent news, like from this past week, Seven gay and lesbian New Jersey couples, along with many of their ... that the state's civil union law designed to give gay couples the same legal protections as married couples has not fulfilled that promise. One man says he was denied being able to make urgent medical decisions for his partner. Maybe that will help clear things up for you. they need to do a better job defining civil union and protecting it,,an agenda I could get behind,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
beastiality is probably extreme as 'consent' cant truly be considered (see joke about whether pets 'consent' to being 'kissed'...lol) however, incest is a valid reference if our criteria is to not judge anything but 'consent' if siblings consent to a relationship, why should they be judged for having the same parents anymore than two other consenting adults should be judged for having the same anatomy? its a pretty valid point, actually, and Im sure this will be the next big decision the courts make regarding the 'fairness' of the marriage definitions,,,, The idea animals cannot consent to sex is a LIE. When a female dog is humping on someone there are two reasons, one is domination since quite a few animals express domination that way, male and female. Likewise the other reason is the dog is in heat and WANTS to get hers. Now since we have horse owners here ever see a mare in heat? They advertise it! Likewise a female horse will back into people wanting to get the hint out she wants to get hers too. Female skunks get pissed off mean but then they are a different animal in that their sex life has been compared to Klingon love. It is violent. Even female cats will advertise and not appear too picky about where they get their release. Now if someone tries to force sex on an animal most of the time they risk injury since female animals will defend themselves too. But when she is lifting her tail and shoving her azz in your face that means one and only one thing, "Service me!" And a number of female animals have the capacity of expressing their desires. I have seen what a sexually frustrated mare is like and they get pissed off and bite at everyone! Hell, I knew a guy a while back who was a Dolphin trainer at Sea World and one of the female dolphins liked him a lot. Too much so since she became sexually aggressive towards him and would not perform. It escalated to the point where he dolphin would pin him to the side of the tank if he got in the water and would rub on him wanting to copulate with him. So to those who do not handle animals, work on a ranch or zoo, or ever owned a pet in their life are just shooting their mouths off about something they don't know. Animals can consent. We just think too much of ourselves. Likewise people are just too messed up about sexuality in general to see we are just like any other animal out there. And no I am not advocating bestiality here. I am just citing facts some cannot face up to! Incest is a problem related to upbringing. That is a failure of the parents to teach their children to not have retard babies among other things. And it is absolutely sick our justice system puts everything on us men when it comes to underage girls. They can and do lie too but then the parents cannot see their little angel for the devil she is and sends the guy to hell. Its all smoke and mirrors built on lies based on religious dogma! SHHHHHHH My dog is getting very nervous here guys! Well, at least you didn't say (...nervous here GAYS!) MG 1959 - I have a question for you. Why is it that so FEW Christians will actually oppose another Christian even when it seems clear that there is not, or cannot be a Christian consensus about a topic despite an what one or another Christian proclaims? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which is why I say, barring some constitutional guarantee that the government has a right to regulate 'potential' birth defects in children incestuous marriages will probably be next in our culture ,,,uncle dad and aunty mom might become staples for our kids,,,YAY! So? If there were no birth defects associated with that, then what would be wrong with it? What's fundamentally wrong with people who are closely related genetically to fall in love? Personally I think that would be rather rare. Most people have no desire to marry their own sisters or brothers. But my point is, if there were no genetic problems with that arrangement then what's wrong with it? I would argue that siblings should already be allowed to marry under certain circumstances. As I've already said, if one of them is sterile and unable to procreate and they plan on adopting, then what's the problem? In fact, with today's medical abilities they could ask to be made "sterile" if their true intention is to adopt. Or maybe they aren't even interested in raising kids at all. Who knows? But yes, remove the potential for genetic defects in closely related people and I have no problem at all with "uncle dad, and aunt mom". It's no biggy. So my parents are also brother and sister? So what? What's wrong with that? Why should that be "immoral"? Please tell me what is so "immoral" about that? It seems to me that the only real argument that can be given is because - "Well according to Hebrew folklore God doesn't approve of it". That's not a satisfying answer for me. I see no reason why it should be immoral for closely related people to fall in love and marry. If this "God" hadn't been so evil in the first place to design genetics to be so disgusting as to cause birth defects in closely related humans then there wouldn't be a problem with it at all. The mere fact that genetics works out to be like that doesn't say much for a supposedly all-benevolent God. This is why some people are atheists. They see this as just being a result of evolution and nothing more. Why would an all-wise all-benevolent God be pulling dirty rotten stunts like that in the first place? Causing innocent babies to be born grossly defective just because two siblings happened to fall in LOVE with each other? Where is there any LOVE and compassion in that? Please, explain that one to me. genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, OK - NOW, how can you related the 'legal' reasons that states dissallow incestuous marriage in any way to same-sex marriage? In other words, how are they similar? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself When is conentual sex between two adults, in responce to emotional love, not "justified"? I think you need to explain that a little better, it seems you may be suggesting that your own morals are the only one's by which behavior can be justified. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, You seem to be missing the whole point, or simply refusing to see it. Why would an infinitely-capable supposedly-benevolent God design such atrocities into genetics in the first place? The idea that some God is responsible for this kind of purposeful design has to be SUPERSTITION. Besides what's wrong with love between a brother and a sister? Is their love for each other not good enough or what? How could LOVE of any kind be considered to be "immoral" by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God? Why should love between a bother and a sister be considered to be "immoral"? LOVE is LOVE? How does LOVE become immoral? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. as much as any emotion is 'natural' and therefore not wrong neither is 'love' neither is 'anger' (although its nothing to encourage ,,,) SEX, is a different thing, just as violence is,,, these are EXPRESSIONS of an emotion that are not automatically justified by the emotion itself When is conentual sex between two adults, in responce to emotional love, not "justified"? I think you need to explain that a little better, it seems you may be suggesting that your own morals are the only one's by which behavior can be justified. in cases of 'statuatory' nature such as 'statuatory' rape,, where both parties may have felt in 'love' and consented to the activity or 'incest' where both parties consent to an activity out of 'love', but the law decides such an expression of said love is disturbing to 'domestic peace' (whatever that has been decided to be) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which is why I say, barring some constitutional guarantee that the government has a right to regulate 'potential' birth defects in children incestuous marriages will probably be next in our culture ,,,uncle dad and aunty mom might become staples for our kids,,,YAY! So? If there were no birth defects associated with that, then what would be wrong with it? What's fundamentally wrong with people who are closely related genetically to fall in love? Personally I think that would be rather rare. Most people have no desire to marry their own sisters or brothers. But my point is, if there were no genetic problems with that arrangement then what's wrong with it? I would argue that siblings should already be allowed to marry under certain circumstances. As I've already said, if one of them is sterile and unable to procreate and they plan on adopting, then what's the problem? In fact, with today's medical abilities they could ask to be made "sterile" if their true intention is to adopt. Or maybe they aren't even interested in raising kids at all. Who knows? But yes, remove the potential for genetic defects in closely related people and I have no problem at all with "uncle dad, and aunt mom". It's no biggy. So my parents are also brother and sister? So what? What's wrong with that? Why should that be "immoral"? Please tell me what is so "immoral" about that? It seems to me that the only real argument that can be given is because - "Well according to Hebrew folklore God doesn't approve of it". That's not a satisfying answer for me. I see no reason why it should be immoral for closely related people to fall in love and marry. If this "God" hadn't been so evil in the first place to design genetics to be so disgusting as to cause birth defects in closely related humans then there wouldn't be a problem with it at all. The mere fact that genetics works out to be like that doesn't say much for a supposedly all-benevolent God. This is why some people are atheists. They see this as just being a result of evolution and nothing more. Why would an all-wise all-benevolent God be pulling dirty rotten stunts like that in the first place? Causing innocent babies to be born grossly defective just because two siblings happened to fall in LOVE with each other? Where is there any LOVE and compassion in that? Please, explain that one to me. genetic defects are not an evolutionary result of 'love' they are a result of 'reproductive' activity animals need not worry themself with the former, just survival humans tend to factor in 'emotions', for 'happiness' my parents are brother and sister, no biggy,,,,,that about sums up where things are headed,,, OK - NOW, how can you related the 'legal' reasons that states dissallow incestuous marriage in any way to same-sex marriage? In other words, how are they similar? in looking up some reason why incestuous marriage is disallowed , I found very little but,, this The purpose of incest statutes is to prevent sexual intercourse between individuals related within the degrees set forth, for the furtherance of the public policy in favor of domestic peace. The prohibition of intermarriage is also based upon genetic considerations, since when excessive inbreeding takes place, undesirable recessive genes become expressed and genetic defects and disease are more readily perpetuated. from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sibling+incest so, according to the above, the 'legal' case against incest is disruption of 'domestic peace' (a fairly vague term that can be applied just about anywhere people are 'closely' related, including step children and adopted children raised in the same home, but who would not be prone to incest laws) similarly, such an assumption about how domestically 'close' two consenting adults are or how disrupted that closeness might be if sex occured, could be argued to be beyond the scope of the law, and unconstitutional ...once those 'legal reasons' are successfully deemed unconstitional I see no way that incest laws will stand as anything other than unfairly discriminatory ,,,similar to the argument in favor of same sex marriage, that to not allow it is unfairly disciminatory,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
beastiality is probably extreme as 'consent' cant truly be considered (see joke about whether pets 'consent' to being 'kissed'...lol) however, incest is a valid reference if our criteria is to not judge anything but 'consent' if siblings consent to a relationship, why should they be judged for having the same parents anymore than two other consenting adults should be judged for having the same anatomy? its a pretty valid point, actually, and Im sure this will be the next big decision the courts make regarding the 'fairness' of the marriage definitions,,,, The idea animals cannot consent to sex is a LIE. When a female dog is humping on someone there are two reasons, one is domination since quite a few animals express domination that way, male and female. Likewise the other reason is the dog is in heat and WANTS to get hers. Now since we have horse owners here ever see a mare in heat? They advertise it! Likewise a female horse will back into people wanting to get the hint out she wants to get hers too. Female skunks get pissed off mean but then they are a different animal in that their sex life has been compared to Klingon love. It is violent. Even female cats will advertise and not appear too picky about where they get their release. Now if someone tries to force sex on an animal most of the time they risk injury since female animals will defend themselves too. But when she is lifting her tail and shoving her azz in your face that means one and only one thing, "Service me!" And a number of female animals have the capacity of expressing their desires. I have seen what a sexually frustrated mare is like and they get pissed off and bite at everyone! Hell, I knew a guy a while back who was a Dolphin trainer at Sea World and one of the female dolphins liked him a lot. Too much so since she became sexually aggressive towards him and would not perform. It escalated to the point where he dolphin would pin him to the side of the tank if he got in the water and would rub on him wanting to copulate with him. So to those who do not handle animals, work on a ranch or zoo, or ever owned a pet in their life are just shooting their mouths off about something they don't know. Animals can consent. We just think too much of ourselves. Likewise people are just too messed up about sexuality in general to see we are just like any other animal out there. And no I am not advocating bestiality here. I am just citing facts some cannot face up to! Incest is a problem related to upbringing. That is a failure of the parents to teach their children to not have retard babies among other things. And it is absolutely sick our justice system puts everything on us men when it comes to underage girls. They can and do lie too but then the parents cannot see their little angel for the devil she is and sends the guy to hell. Its all smoke and mirrors built on lies based on religious dogma! SHHHHHHH My dog is getting very nervous here guys! Well, at least you didn't say (...nervous here GAYS!) MG 1959 - I have a question for you. Why is it that so FEW Christians will actually oppose another Christian even when it seems clear that there is not, or cannot be a Christian consensus about a topic despite an what one or another Christian proclaims? I can't answer for others but for me I have this feeling of kinship with people that develops and bonds me to them. At the same time I seem to lean toward fruits and study where others I think lean toward the Christian fundamentalist thing like you mentioned and I'm not too hip on that. I can hang out with fundamentalist but I don't think their too crazy about hanging out with me. For myself though I don't mind calling a Christian out if they are doing something in the name of God that is not cool. Not sure if that answered you. I also think that many Christians get doctrinally thought tied. They get stuck on a doctrine that causes them to be unfocused on the over all theme of love first above all. It starts to look like a stream roller of judgmental condemnation instead of the peacefulness of a loving God. I think Fundamenaltist Christianity over all has made God look angry at people and for myself I see nothing of the sort, but maybe I didn't grow up under judgment like so many did. For myself it's pretty easy to see right and wrong for me in a very simplistic belief in God and Christ from the studies I have done, but I see a lot of angry Christians that scare the Jesus out of me and I wouldn't want to be in their church or close circle. I do think (even though he needs chill pills lol) that Abra is right about there being much ego and bigotry in the Christian community, but this comes from man being out of touch with God and not God producing it. At least I've never seen God produce it. |
|
|
|
|
