1
   

Rethinking Homosexuality

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 03:40 pm
Sorry I seemed to have misjudged you, real life. You are not trolling (we've had a little rash of them in here lately...well, one in particular).
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 03:46 pm
real life wrote:
What is truly fantastic, ehBeth, is when folks seem to expect instant McAnswers regarding a book that was penned by over 40 different authors in 4 languages on 3 continents over a span of 1500+ years. Laughing

Even funnier is expecting a specific answer when supplying a vague question. Laughing


Just out of curiosity, if it's too much to expect concise answers from the bible, then how can it possibly be such an integral part of Christianity? How can it be considered at all reliable if it's so widely open to personal interpretation that the question of "How do you arrive at the conclusion that this part is set in stone, and that part isn't." becomes a vague question?

Just curious, and I guess it's more of a tangent than this thread warrants.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:04 pm
Wiat a minute! Sozobe, I thought we had this all straightened out and I said I could see how I was denyig someone their civil rights? That's why I said isn't that what prohibiting divorce would be? I meant isn't that also doing the same thing? Guess I missed something. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:15 pm
Hmmm, already explained, Momma Angel. If you didn't get that, I'll leave it at: nobody thinks it's a good idea to prohibit divorce. It's merely a thought experiment illustrating why it's not a good idea to prohibit gay and lesbian people from marrying, either.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:17 pm
Questioner wrote:
real life wrote:
What is truly fantastic, ehBeth, is when folks seem to expect instant McAnswers regarding a book that was penned by over 40 different authors in 4 languages on 3 continents over a span of 1500+ years. Laughing

Even funnier is expecting a specific answer when supplying a vague question. Laughing


Just out of curiosity, if it's too much to expect concise answers from the bible,


You are reading something extra into my post, that I didn't say. Do you do that when you read the Bible, too?

Questioner wrote:
then how can it possibly be such an integral part of Christianity? How can it be considered at all reliable if it's so widely open to personal interpretation


The Bible has a correct interpretation. It is reliable. But man is fallible. So different people are going to understand it differently. The same is true of the Constitution, people interpret it different ways. Can you think of any written document of significance that this might not be said of?

Questioner wrote:


that the question of "How do you arrive at the conclusion that this part is set in stone, and that part isn't." becomes a vague question?

Just curious, and I guess it's more of a tangent than this thread warrants.


It is a general question. And I don't mind giving a general answer to it, which I did. I just think it's funny when someone thinks that's a 'dodge'. Unless they are looking for me to type a book on hermenutics (which they probably aren't), they'll have to settle for a general answer to match a general question.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:18 pm
I know sozobe. I was addressing the post where someone seemed to feel I was getting how it would be violating civil rights if we prohibited divorce but didn't seem to get it about gay marriage. I was just clarifying my position on that issue.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:26 pm
sozobe wrote:
Hmmm, already explained, Momma Angel. If you didn't get that, I'll leave it at: nobody thinks it's a good idea to prohibit divorce. It's merely a thought experiment illustrating why it's not a good idea to prohibit gay and lesbian people from marrying, either.


Just out of curiosity, Sozobe, do you support:

polygamy

siblings marrying

parent marrying child (at age 18)

other close relatives marrying (i.e. aunt-nephew, cousins, grandparent-grandchild at age 18)

group marriage (i.e. three men two women, or other group arrangement)

man or woman marrying pet (dog, cat, goat, etc)

These are all ways in which somebody is actually trying to redefine marriage today. Should they be allowed to do so?

If not on each one, why not?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:27 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
CoastalRat,

It is true I will not address Lash directly. I have told her I won't.

Now, THAT's a person whose word you can take to the bank. Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

If I DO decide to put words in your mouth, at least they'll be the truth. Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing




MOAN wrote:

Lash,

Would you kindly stop putting words in my mouth? Or at least use all the words. I said ANYONE who commits suicide is responsible for the ultimate act itself. I said yes, outside forces affect someone but if you pick up a gun and shoot yourself or take a handful of pills, it is you that does it.

If you tell the police that someone is threatening suicide, they go take the person threatening suicide to get help. They don't round up every single person that has contributed to the problem.

Your obvious dislike of me is skewing your vision IMO. Try reading what I actually do POST and not what you THINK I post.

...You are the one that added to it. I did represent what you've said. Your obvious hatred of gays and superiority complex over them doesn't allow you to see that your evil feelings about them are coming out in your comments.

It's ugly. You blame miserable, heartbroken children for what you and your evil friends have done to them.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:29 pm
real life wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Hmmm, already explained, Momma Angel. If you didn't get that, I'll leave it at: nobody thinks it's a good idea to prohibit divorce. It's merely a thought experiment illustrating why it's not a good idea to prohibit gay and lesbian people from marrying, either.


Just out of curiosity, Sozobe, do you support:

polygamy

siblings marrying

parent marrying child (at age 18)

other close relatives marrying (i.e. aunt-nephew, cousins, grandparent-grandchild at age 18)

group marriage (i.e. three men two women, or other group arrangement)

man or woman marrying pet (dog, cat, goat, etc)

These are all ways in which somebody is actually trying to redefine marriage today. Should they be allowed to do so?

If not on each one, why not?

They always trot this **** out.

This is proof that they equate human beings, who are gay with animals and disgusting practices.

It is transparent hatred.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:31 pm
With regard to "real life's" attempt to equate homosexuality to incest and polygamy: Those are not analogous to homosexual marriage, which does not envision plural marriage or the marriage of people closely related by blood. There was not a working definition of marriage being the legal contract between a man and a woman until people became paranoid about the possibility of homosexual marriage. In fact, homosexual marriage envisions no change in the concept of two consenting adults joining in a contractual relationship.

I am not surprised, though, to see a fuandamentalist fanatic attempting to equate homosexuality to such ideas, as it is implicit in fundy rage on this topic that they consider homosexuality to be perversion.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:33 pm
That's at least somewhat substantial, I'd given up all hope of that.

In general, I am for allowing two consenting adults -- fully informed consent, with none of the power issues that compromise consent in the case of familial relationships, for example -- to do what they please in the bedroom.

That removes any familial relationship or any human/non-human relationship.

Polygamy or group marriage is indeed trickier. If it becomes a legislative issue I would have to investigate it thoroughly to decide what I think.

Gay and lesbian couples having the right to marry I have already fully investigated, and see no valid reason to prohibit it.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:33 pm
So what, Lash. I say I won't address you and then I do. Fine. Call me whatever.

I have redefined how I feel about this whole issue; however you cannot accep that. It seems you have to have something to beat me over the head with.

If you would read more than that one post in the thread you will see where I repeatedly explained it. You will also see where I said you could use any other term other than gay bashing, etc.

You are the most intolerant person I know. You continually rail against me for what you think are infractions or imperfections in my character and absolutely refuse to see the hypocrisy of your own acts in doing so.

I keep asking you to stop this and you keep mouthing off. Shall we get this thread locked or pulled also, Lash?

Carry on by yourself with this conversation. My evil friends? You might want to take a look in the mirror about someone calling someone evil Lash. I never called you or anyone evil. Now, explain to me why YOU can tell me I have evil friends but God forbid I'd pray for you or anyone else?

I feel sorrier for you more and more each day.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:37 pm
Setanta wrote:
Those are not analogous to homosexual marriage, which does not envision plural marriage or the marriage of people closely related by blood. There was not a working definition of marriage being the legal contract between a man and a woman until people became paranoid about the possibility of homosexual marriage. In fact, homosexual marriage envisions no change in the concept of two consenting adults joining in a contractual relationship.

I am not surprised, though, to see a fuandamentalist fanatic attempting to equate homosexuality to such ideas, as it is implicit in fundy rage on this topic that they consider homosexuality to be perversion.


Hi Setanta,

siblings

parent & adult age child

aunt-nephew

grandparent-grandchild (adult age)

These are all consenting adults. Why would you not allow them to marry?

Don't give me some rationale for prohibition about being related by blood (doesn't that come from the Bible?)

You are not consistent if you make such exceptions. They are all consenting adults, aren't they?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:39 pm
The key is consenting adults. There is no victim when both parties are adults and consent to have a sexual relationship. They have the rational and reasonable right to be able to legally bond that relationship. It is coming and no matter what, those laws against gay marriage will be struck down as unconstitutional. Better bite the bullet now.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:39 pm
Lash wrote:
real life wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Hmmm, already explained, Momma Angel. If you didn't get that, I'll leave it at: nobody thinks it's a good idea to prohibit divorce. It's merely a thought experiment illustrating why it's not a good idea to prohibit gay and lesbian people from marrying, either.


Just out of curiosity, Sozobe, do you support:

polygamy

siblings marrying

parent marrying child (at age 18)

other close relatives marrying (i.e. aunt-nephew, cousins, grandparent-grandchild at age 18)

group marriage (i.e. three men two women, or other group arrangement)

man or woman marrying pet (dog, cat, goat, etc)

These are all ways in which somebody is actually trying to redefine marriage today. Should they be allowed to do so?

If not on each one, why not?

They always trot this **** out.

This is proof that they equate human beings, who are gay with animals and disgusting practices.

It is transparent hatred.


Clarify please. What are you terming 'disgusting' besides the animals? Anything else or just that?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:41 pm
You would be, I'm sure, equally disgusted at the idea of your parents or grandparents have sex. Let's have a law against parents and grandparents having sex based on disgust.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:41 pm
sozobe wrote:
That's at least somewhat substantial, I'd given up all hope of that.

In general, I am for allowing two consenting adults -- fully informed consent, with none of the power issues that compromise consent in the case of familial relationships, for example -- to do what they please in the bedroom.

That removes any familial relationship or any human/non-human relationship.

Polygamy or group marriage is indeed trickier. If it becomes a legislative issue I would have to investigate it thoroughly to decide what I think.

Gay and lesbian couples having the right to marry I have already fully investigated, and see no valid reason to prohibit it.


So you are making exceptions for the familial relationships based on your biased opinion that they cannot handle it, or that in some way is not proper?

Doesn't that seem a little.....................
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:42 pm
(Now that I have put a picture in everyone's mind again that they will likely have to take several days to get out Laughing )
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:42 pm
I personally have no such objections, with the exception that parent and child marriages might well be the product of unwarranted influence having been exercised over the younger party before said party reached the age of majority.

What i am pointing out is that as there is a repugnance against consanguinity in marriage, which may or may not be a product of mindless adherence to scripture, it is typical that hateful religionists trot out such false analogies, given that it is always their purpose to bring homosexuality into disrepute, and to equate it with that which is considered dispicable behavior.

As always, i consider that your purposes are propagandistic, and that the high page rank of this site is what attracts you; that you don't care what the members who respond here think, but that you only care about the impression you create with the casual reader. In this case, i belive that you intend to create an impression in less rigorously critical minds that homosexuality can be equated with practices which are condemned in religionist circles as perversity.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 04:43 pm
I am quite evil right now. In order to be a hypocrite, I'd have to do as you do so frequently: Say one thing and mean another, lie about my true feelings/beliefs, flatter for points.

I refuse to do any of that. So, I am very plain spoken, sometimes quite rude.

But never a hypocrite.

If I discover I have accidentally been hypocritical, I apologize to the person offended and try to avoid it. Because I despise it, which is why I despise you.

I would happy to overlook you, but I am not letting you get away with your hypocrisy and lies, especially on subjects that are so important to me.

So

1-- Be honest.

2-- Be prepared.

3-- Be gone.

You choose.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2025 at 12:16:53