or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Religious Absurdity Vol 1: "I'm not gay. Go ahead, measure my asshole."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Religious Absurdity Vol 1: "I'm not gay. Go ahead, measure my asshole." - Page 5

post #161 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Bringing incest into this does produce a massive facepalm. Science not spoken here. Ignorance abounds.

OK, I'll bite: Why? BR is arguing that "any two consenting adults" should be able to marry. He has stated the issue is consent. I'm asking...if consent is the issue, then:
  • Why is marriage limited to two people? Why not three? Or 10? Or 50?
  • Why are there laws preventing people from marrying relatives?

There are separate answers for each, and you won't like them....
  • Answer: Marriage is limited to two people because that is a long standing tradition based on Judeo-Christian and other religious principals. If you favor limiting it to two people, then you must acknolwedge this.
  • Answer: People cannot marry relatives because A) The potential consequences to their future children (birth defects) and B) Religious and moral principles common to nearly all societies. If you agree incest should be illegal, then you agree with both of these statements.

What does the above mean? Simple. It means marriage is based on two concepts: Judeo-Christian and other religious principles, and procreation. Governments recognized marriage based on these roots Moreover, if consent is the issue, then no law preventing any number of consenting adults from doing anything is valid. Incest, polygamy and even beastiality (unless the law for the latter is written to protect the animal itself...obviously it cannot consent).

Speaking of governments and recognition: The argument that we cannot base decisions upon societal norms which themselves are religious in nature is bogus, especially in this country. Our 1st Amendment has been perverted to a high degree. It was never intended to create the "wall of separation" as outlined by the USSC, nor was it intended to remove all religion from the public square. The people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have every right to support societal norms like marriage, just as they have the right to regulate grossly immoral behaviors like incest and beastiality. Supporters of gay marriage that hang their hats on consent do not believe the government (people) can regulate any behavior whatsoever, unless it directly hurts another person (violent crime, for example).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #162 of 221
Thread Starter 
Try reading the bible. Jesus talks about WIVES...plural. You are so off-based on this JudeoChristian nonsense. It wasn't until the 15th century that the church started cracking down on polygamy, and that was purely out of greed...a big land-grab

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #163 of 221
Thread Starter 
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-a...lical-marriage

Quote:
Christians are fond of defending the sanctity of Biblical marriage. One man, one woman, bonded for life, sexually exclusive, and celibate before marriage. The thing is, that's not in the Bible. In order to find that model of marriage, we have to move much farther forward in history. If anyone was to take the Bible literally, a "Defense of Marriage Act" would look more like this:

Polygamy
Taking the Bible as a whole, there are far more references to polygamy -- and far more approval from God himself for the institution -- than for monogamous marriage.

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: Deuteronomy 21:15-16
Earlier in the same chapter, rules are spelled out for taking captive slaves and adding them to your harem of wives.
And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David. 2 samuel 5:13
David, the direct ancestor of Jesus, the savior of the entire world, had 6 wives and many, many concubines. Concubines, by virtue of NOT being wives, are pretty solid evidence that non-married sex wasn't an especially bad thing in the Old Testament.
Speaking of non-married sex, King Solomon, the wisest man in the history of the universe, had 300 concubines. Think about how many times you had sex last year. Solomon probably had you beat before he even got to the first of his 700 wives. 1 Kings 11:3
Rehoboam, Solomon's son, didn't do quite so well. He only had 18 wives and 60 concubines. 2 Chronicles 11:21
Esau had three wives. At first, he married two Caananite women, but his parents were mad at him -- not for having two wives, but because they were foreigners. So he found himself a good Jewish girl and took her for his own. (LINK)
Jesus' take on polygamy
Christians love this passage: 5. and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew 19: 5-6. It proves Jesus advocated one man, one woman, with no divorce, right?

Well... not exactly. For some reason, they forget the rest of the passage. 8. Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." Jesus goes on to prohibit divorce, but NOT multiple wives.

More importantly, there is not a single passage to be found in the New Testament where Jesus condemns, outlaws, or otherwise prohibits polygamy. Really! There isn't a single one. Read it for yourself and see. One would think that if it was important for his followers to abandon the marital traditions of hundreds of years, and more importantly, of his own forbears -- those men who were individually chosen by God -- he might have taken a moment to mention it.

Paul on marriage
Much of today's Christian perspective on marriage is taken from Paul, the only Biblical non-disciple to claim to have had a chat with Jesus about theology. But his perspective isn't especially helpful,either.

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 1 Cor. 7:1
Paul goes on to say, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." This verse is often used to "prove" that Paul was mandating strict monogamy, but in broader context, this simply doesn't follow. Jesus' own words implicitly support the model of marriage from the Old Testament -- multiple wives. Since Paul clearly doesn't care much for women or sex to begin with, it's understandable that he would not want to marry more than one. But like Jesus, he does not prohibit or condemn polygamous marriage. It was how things had been done for centuries. You'd think he'd have mentioned it if it was important.

Early Christian Views of marriage
In truth, we have to look to the Catholic Church, fifteen hundred years later, to find the first blanket prohibition of polygamous marriage. Four centuries after Paul, Augustine was wrestling with the lack of Biblical condemnation of polygamy, and the Church Fathers' enthusiastic support for the practice. In the second century CE, Catholic leaders were openly advocating pluralistic marriage. Basilides and Carpocrates were both polygamy advocates. They were eventually branded as heretics, but notably -- it wasn't because of their views on marriage.

Even a thousand years after Paul, concubinage was still permitted and even encouraged in civil codes -- In Christian Europe. It wasn't until the Council of Trent -- In 1563 -- that the church finally decided on one man/one woman as a model for good Christian marriage. (LINK)

More disturbingly, the Catholic Church's series of medieval laws regarding marriage seem to have had very little to do with following Biblical edicts. Instead, they had a very real economic effect for the Holy See. By outlawing multiple marriage, concubinage, adoption, and inmarriage, the Church acquired as much as 40% of the property in many parts of Christendom within a few centuries. (LINK)

Other notable Biblical Views on marriage

"Your women" (wives) are not allowed to speak in church. 1 Cor 14:34
Slaves are fair game for masters to give or sell as wives. Exodus 21
It's good and holy to poison your wife if you think she's cheated on you. Numbers 5
If you capture a woman from a vanquished ally, you can "try her on for size" as a wife. If she doesn't please you sexually, you can just let her go, and forget the whole thing. Deuteronomy 21
Like so many other Christian beliefs, the modern emphasis on one man and one woman -- sexually exclusive for life -- rests not so much on the Bible, and much more on the vagaries of political expediency through a long and often brutal history of religious domination and suppression.


And here's a very long, detailed article all about the history of the bible not just condoning but actively promoting polygamy:

http://www.blainerobison.com/concerns/polygamy


So, SDW, stop it with this Judeo-Christian one man one woman nonsense. You are so ignorant on this topic it's not even funny.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #164 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-a...lical-marriage




And here's a very long, detailed article all about the history of the bible not just condoning but actively promoting polygamy:

http://www.blainerobison.com/concerns/polygamy


So, SDW, stop it with this Judeo-Christian one man one woman nonsense. You are so ignorant on this topic it's not even funny.

BR, you and Tonton and your wives should all go out to dinner.

That sentence does not mean you have multiple wives, but that there is more than one wife referenced. All the claims of supporting multiple wives because the word wives was used does not add up.

Is there polygamy in the Bible. Yes. What happened to the biggest polygamists? Like Solomon? It was a large part of their undoing. As it was in many of the historical records from biblical times. Heck, look at Abraham and his multiple wives. It led to the descendants being set against each other through his own disobedience and that was in large part because of his multiple wives. It was not solely his wives fault (and yes there was blame to go around), much of that that he also did on his own, but if he had not had them the result might have been very different.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #165 of 221
Thread Starter 
Polygamy was common in the bible, never denounced, and was not out of the norm in the least in Christendom until 16th century. Again, this idea that Judeo-Christian values somehow include a biblical decree against polygamy is nonsense.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #166 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OK, I'll bite: Why? BR is arguing that "any two consenting adults" should be able to marry. He has stated the issue is consent. I'm asking...if consent is the issue, then:

Quote:
[*]Why is marriage limited to two people? Why not three? Or 10? Or 50?

Because of legal and social problems associated with such practice. Science.
Quote:
[*]Why are there laws preventing people from marrying relatives?

You're about to answer your own question...
Quote:
There are separate answers for each, and you won't like them....

As you'll see, one is an answer, based on science, and one is bullshit:

Quote:
[*]Answer: Marriage is limited to two people because that is a long standing tradition based on Judeo-Christian and other religious principals. If you favor limiting it to two people, then you must acknolwedge this.

Oops. Bullshit. First of all, as BR pointed out, polygamy was well accepted in Judeo-Christian history. Second, there are other reasons for limiting marriage to two people, besides this. Can you guess what they might be based on? You're RIGHT! Well done. Science.
Quote:
[*]Answer: People cannot marry relatives because A) The potential consequences to their future children (birth defects)

Right! Well done!
Quote:
and B) Religious and moral principles common to nearly all societies.

Eh. Try again!
Quote:
If you agree incest should be illegal, then you agree with both of these statements.


Really? I can't possibly agree with the first statement, and disagree with the second statement? I can't!?
Quote:
What does the above mean?

That you're not very smart.
Quote:
Simple. It means marriage is based on two concepts: Judeo-Christian and other religious principles, and procreation.

What about love?
Quote:
Governments recognized marriage based on these roots.

And governments recognized the right to marry based on the color of your skin. There was an element of choice there, too. If you were a white man, you could choose to marry a white woman. No one was forcing you to marry a black woman. If you wanted to marry a black woman that was your choice. And that choice was not accepted. Until people "redefined" marriage.
Quote:
Moreover, if consent is the issue, then no law preventing any number of consenting adults from doing anything is valid.

Bullshit. When there are negative scientific, factual consequences, the validity remains.
Quote:
Incest, polygamy and even beastiality (unless the law for the latter is written to protect the animal itself...obviously it cannot consent).

Nope. Science precludes those. And the law against bestiality IS written to protect the animal, which, you're right, cannot consent.
Quote:
Speaking of governments and recognition: The argument that we cannot base decisions upon societal norms which themselves are religious in nature is bogus, especially in this country. Our 1st Amendment has been perverted to a high degree. It was never intended to create the "wall of separation" as outlined by the USSC, nor was it intended to remove all religion from the public square. The people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have every right to support societal norms like marriage, just as they have the right to regulate grossly immoral behaviors like incest and beastiality. Supporters of gay marriage that hang their hats on consent do not believe the government (people) can regulate any behavior whatsoever, unless it directly hurts another person (violent crime, for example).

They have these rights as individuals, as an individual choice. Not as a state mandate. Except where there are negative consequences involved.

You have the choice not to marry a man. Make that choice for yourself. Not for your neighbor.
post #167 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

BR, you and Tonton and your wives should all go out to dinner.

That sentence does not mean you have multiple wives, but that there is more than one wife referenced. All the claims of supporting multiple wives because the word wives was used does not add up.

Is there polygamy in the Bible. Yes. What happened to the biggest polygamists? Like Solomon? It was a large part of their undoing. As it was in many of the historical records from biblical times. Heck, look at Abraham and his multiple wives. It led to the descendants being set against each other through his own disobedience and that was in large part because of his multiple wives. It was not solely his wives fault (and yes there was blame to go around), much of that that he also did on his own, but if he had not had them the result might have been very different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Polygamy was common in the bible, never denounced, and was not out of the norm in the least in Christendom until 16th century. Again, this idea that Judeo-Christian values somehow include a biblical decree against polygamy is nonsense.

I love when BR tried to use that in which he doesn't believe to support his argument.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #168 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Because of legal and social problems associated with such practice. Science.

What, like your tax returns? According to you, there should be no "social" problems. Everyone should accept everything that everyone else does.

Quote:

You're about to answer your own question...

As you'll see, one is an answer, based on science, and one is bullshit:


Oops. Bullshit. First of all, as BR pointed out, polygamy was well accepted in Judeo-Christian history. Second, there are other reasons for limiting marriage to two people, besides this. Can you guess what they might be based on? You're RIGHT! Well done. Science.

Keep believing that.

Quote:



Right! Well done!

Eh. Try again!

So marriage between a man and a woman is not something common to nearly all societies, especially within the last several hundred years?

Quote:


Really? I can't possibly agree with the first statement, and disagree with the second statement? I can't!?

That you're not very smart.

What about love?

Love often had nothing to do with it. You'd know this if you were not ignorant of...social SCIENCE.

Quote:

And governments recognized the right to marry based on the color of your skin. There was an element of choice there, too. If you were a white man, you could choose to marry a white woman. No one was forcing you to marry a black woman. If you wanted to marry a black woman that was your choice. And that choice was not accepted. Until people "redefined" marriage.

Invalid comparison. NO ONE chooses his or her race. That's what an "element of choice" means.

Quote:

Bullshit. When there are negative scientific, factual consequences, the validity remains.

What are the negative scientific, factual consequences of polygamy, for example? What are the negative scientific consequences of a man marring two other men? Your argument makes no sense. If there is no reason to stop gay marriage, there is no reason to stop the above.

Quote:

Nope. Science precludes those. And the law against bestiality IS written to protect the animal, which, you're right, cannot consent.

Science does not preclude them in all cases. And bestiality laws are not written excessively to protect the animal. It's considered a grossly immoral, obscene behavior that has no place in society.

Quote:

They have these rights as individuals, as an individual choice. Not as a state mandate. Except where there are negative consequences involved.

So the state can only outlaw things that have "negative consequences." Hmm. Let me ask then...doesn't gay marriage inhibit procreation of humankind? That's a pretty good scientific reason if you ask me.

Quote:

You have the choice not to marry a man. Make that choice for yourself. Not for your neighbor.

Here's the thing: I've not arguing that people should be prevented from being gay. I'm not arguing that people should be prevented from being in a gay relationship, or an open relationship, really any kind of relationship. I am not even arguing that the government should prevent them from receiving civil recognition. I have gay friends, colleagues, etc....and I have absolutely no problem with who they are.

But what I am saying is that this is not marriage. It's simply not what the word means. Honestly, it would be easy for me to say "fuck it..it doesn't affect me and I have nothing against gays anyway." But that's lazy, because changing the meaning of well-established cultural pillars is tricky business. This is step one in destroying the institution of marriage completely.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #169 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I love when BR tried to use that in which he doesn't believe to support his argument.

I know far more about religion than you do. Just because I don't buy into doesn't mean I haven't studied it. In fact, the more I learn about it, the more I abhor it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #170 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I know far more about religion than you do. Just because I don't buy into doesn't mean I haven't studied it. In fact, the more I learn about it, the more I abhor it.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree that your study of religion is as impartial as you claim to think.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #171 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I know far more about religion than you do. Just because I don't buy into doesn't mean I haven't studied it. In fact, the more I learn about it, the more I abhor it.

You know nothing, regardless of how much you've "studied" it. That much you make clear with each post.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #172 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

We are just going to have to agree to disagree that your study of religion is as impartial as you claim to think.

Exactly what I'm saying. Finding evidence to support one's biases is easy. Anyone that actually studied religion in a dispassionate way would not be making the kinds of statements BR does.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #173 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You know nothing, regardless of how much you've "studied" it. That much you make clear with each post.

Point to a passage that decries polygamy. I've pointed to several that support it. I'm calling your bluff. Any response (or lack thereof) to this post that does not point to a passage denouncing polygamy is tacit admission that you don't know shit.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #174 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Point to a passage that decries polygamy. I've pointed to several that support it. I'm calling your bluff. Any response (or lack thereof) to this post that does not point to a passage denouncing polygamy is tacit admission that you don't know shit.

You still can't comprehend what I'm saying. You are stuck in a thought prison of your own making.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #175 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You still can't comprehend what I'm saying. You are stuck in a thought prison of your own making.

Right, you don't have a leg to stand on. You can't refute any of the facts about JudeoChristian values supporting polygamy for centuries. You can't point to a passage in your "Holy Book" that supports your view against polygamy. You are a black hole of bad ideas and illogic--once they have entered your event horizon, they can't escape.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #176 of 221
You gave up all legs to stand on when you gave up discussing consent BR. I posted to just as many historical models of consent related to age and you won't even touch it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #177 of 221
Thread Starter 
You can't discuss consent until define what it means to have free will in the first place. That debate hasn't been settled. So clearly, under your same reasoning, your talk about consent is a diversion from the real issue.

Or, instead, we can have both discussions--one not depending on the other. But we can keep the consent discussion which applies to ALL marriage, not just homosexual marriage, in a different topic.

Given the current framework of marriage and consent, the discussion is about extending marriage rights to homosexuals. Your demands are out of scope of this discussion. Feel free to start a new thread.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #178 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Invalid comparison. NO ONE chooses his or her race. That's what an "element of choice" means.

But... I wasn't talking about being able to choose your race. I was talking about the choice of whom to marry. 100% choice. Not an element of choice. 100% choice. Don't play ignorant, unless you really are.

A straight white man can, today, choose to marry a white woman or a black woman (or an Asian woman, or a Hispanic woman, etc., or no one at all). Until recently, in our glorious United States of America, it was as much as illegal for a white man to marry a black woman. The definition of marriage for general society was within a single race. Black people could marry black people and white people could marry white people. It was limited to that because of "social construct".

We changed the definition because that definition was bigoted and ignorant.
post #179 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You can't discuss consent until define what it means to have free will in the first place. That debate hasn't been settled. So clearly, under your same reasoning, your talk about consent is a diversion from the real issue.

Or, instead, we can have both discussions--one not depending on the other. But we can keep the consent discussion which applies to ALL marriage, not just homosexual marriage, in a different topic.

Given the current framework of marriage and consent, the discussion is about extending marriage rights to homosexuals. Your demands are out of scope of this discussion. Feel free to start a new thread.

BR, don't play into his game. Trumptman was never discussing consent. He lost the debate through ignorance and was hoping we wouldn't notice.

A fully functional adult can consent. A child cannot consent (up until exactly what age or stage of development, we can't specify exactly, so we have to make an average "best guess" based on the science that we know, hence codified "age of consent", not always agreed upon between jurisdictions.) An animal cannot consent, full stop. Trumpt lost the debate, confusing consent with law.
post #180 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news...le_31238.shtml

A Spanish priest is removed from his parish by his bishop after claims are made that the priest had an affair with a 28 year old male seminarian. The bishop wants the priest to undergo psychotherapy to "remove the gay" and undergo an HIV test in order to reclaim his parish. In response, the priest says:



Get with the program, religious nutters. Homosexuality exists. It exists in humans. It exists in nature. Go read a book (if you can, I have my doubts regarding some of you) on the subject. You know, with SCIENCE (the evil S word). Biological Exuberance is a good text on the subject.

It's 2011. Get out of the dark ages.

This is the first post in this thread. It doesn't even mention homosexual marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You can't discuss consent until define what it means to have free will in the first place. That debate hasn't been settled. So clearly, under your same reasoning, your talk about consent is a diversion from the real issue.

If there isn't free will, then you are being just as ridiculous in asking "religious nutters" to alter their nature as it is to ask someone homosexual to alter their nature. Both are just acting on biology then and neither should be labeled wrong or bad, just natural.
Quote:
Or, instead, we can have both discussions--one not depending on the other. But we can keep the consent discussion which applies to ALL marriage, not just homosexual marriage, in a different topic.

The topic, which apparently you have forgotten, is about how it is ridiculous to use ancient and historical concepts to deal with modern decision making. You are desperate to avoid applying this criteria to your own reasoning, so you make up nonsense about this discussion only being about homosexual marriage when the very first post, which I have quoted for you involves a church dealing with priest being removed from his parish. SDW noted that not only does the church not allow priest to be gay, it doesn't allow them to marry. You note it ridiculous to believe someone can be cured of being gay.

Quote:
Why should that sort of belief deserve any respect whatsoever? The idea that someone should be "cured" of their gayness is abhorrent. "Oh, but it's just their belief" is merely tacit approval of those awful ideas.

Actually staying in line with what you mentioned about free will, here is my first post on the topic.

Quote:
If you believe sex and who you desire to have it with is merely a function of genes, then what do you propose to do with those who still express sexual desires that society does not deem acceptable? Homosexuality was once deemed deviant. Are you just unenlightened because you don't endorse polyamory, bestiality, etc?

Where do you draw the line between free will and gene expression?

You've refused to discuss any other forums of gene-based sexual expression. You've refused to discuss free will and the history of consent. You're not really having a discussion here. You took an example that wasn't even related in any form or fashion to homosexual marriage, got called on it, and retreated to homosexual marriage because you think it a safe place and moral high ground to beat on others. You won't discuss why you believe this or how if others are more tolerant than you why your position shouldn't become more in line with theirs, you just sit here and ignore all the very relevant points and berate people.

Quote:
Given the current framework of marriage and consent, the discussion is about extending marriage rights to homosexuals. Your demands are out of scope of this discussion. Feel free to start a new thread.

I've quoted your own posts on this point so if you can't see how you've moved from curing homosexuality to homosexual marriage. You claim homosexual bigotry is primarily religious based. You refuse to discuss how the same factors applied outside of homosexuality are either the same form of bias and thus not exclusive to homosexuality (thus not homophobia) or how other non-religious institutions apply the same standards and thus they are not religiously based.

In short, you don't wish to have a discussion as was noted in the beginning.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #181 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But... I wasn't talking about being able to choose your race. I was talking about the choice of whom to marry. 100% choice. Not an element of choice. 100% choice. Don't play ignorant, unless you really are.

A straight white man can, today, choose to marry a white woman or a black woman (or an Asian woman, or a Hispanic woman, etc., or no one at all). Until recently, in our glorious United States of America, it was as much as illegal for a white man to marry a black woman. The definition of marriage for general society was within a single race. Black people could marry black people and white people could marry white people. It was limited to that because of "social construct".

We changed the definition because that definition was bigoted and ignorant.

Yet you refuse to discuss what additional definitions might be bigoted and ignorant and by what mechanism we keep those additional definitions out of bounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

BR, don't play into his game. Trumptman was never discussing consent. He lost the debate through ignorance and was hoping we wouldn't notice.


Quote:
A fully functional adult can consent. A child cannot consent (up until exactly what age or stage of development, we can't specify exactly, so we have to make an average "best guess" based on the science that we know, hence codified "age of consent", not always agreed upon between jurisdictions.) An animal cannot consent, full stop. Trumpt lost the debate, confusing consent with law.

You are ridiculous. There are multiple forms of consent and multiple areas of consent. You are basically spewing nonsense to avoid the point. You refuse to address the point because your own beliefs here are based upon the same religious absurdity you claim to despise. You've fooled exactly no one on this point.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #182 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Point to a passage that decries polygamy. I've pointed to several that support it. I'm calling your bluff. Any response (or lack thereof) to this post that does not point to a passage denouncing polygamy is tacit admission that you don't know shit.

You have pointed to passages that you claim support polygamy, and in the same breath tried to undermine or invalidate those that do not. You know where most of the commonly cited passages are and have chosen to see them your own way.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #183 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

You have pointed to passages that you claim support polygamy, and in the same breath tried to undermine or invalidate those that do not. You know where most of the commonly cited passages are and have chosen to see them your own way.

Yes, he is, and he's asking you to point out the most commonly cited passages that are in opposition to polygamy, being as it may that you are claiming that the judeo-Christian tradition (read: the Bible) opposes it. That seems a fair enough request.
post #184 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are ridiculous. There are multiple forms of consent and multiple areas of consent. You are basically spewing nonsense to avoid the point. You refuse to address the point because your own beliefs here are based upon the same religious absurdity you claim to despise. You've fooled exactly no one on this point.

What you're talking about is still not consent. You still don't get it.
post #185 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What you're talking about is still not consent. You still don't get it.

What you fail to get is you saying I don't get it isn't exactly proof of your point.

I linked to this earlier in the thread and discussed it.
You've spouted nonsense and repeated yourself.

Add something.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #186 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, he is, and he's asking you to point out the most commonly cited passages that are in opposition to polygamy, being as it may that you are claiming that the judeo-Christian tradition (read: the Bible) opposes it. That seems a fair enough request.

Perhaps you fail to see that he posted many of the passages already. His claims of them being wrong are based of false assumptions that I pointed out earlier. Sometimes we need to know that the other person is not interested in understanding their position. They just want to mock and undermine it.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #187 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Point to a passage that decries polygamy. I've pointed to several that support it. I'm calling your bluff. Any response (or lack thereof) to this post that does not point to a passage denouncing polygamy is tacit admission that you don't know shit.

BR, any argument you make based on religion is intellectually and even spiritually dishonest. Your "study" of religion began from a place of utter bias against it...and Christianity in particular. Therefore, any argument you make based on religion is bogus.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #188 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

BR, any argument you make based on religion is intellectually and even spiritually dishonest. Your "study" of religion began from a place of utter bias against it...and Christianity in particular. Therefore, any argument you make based on religion is bogus.

That and deluded belief that "Dude, I found an infographic" combined with "Dude, I found some pictures featuring mean and mocking jokes which "prove" my point," aren't real reasoning.

I swear Jon Stewart and Bill Maher have probably single-handedly stopped any liberal progress in the country to their own chagrin because they'd rather people repeat their jokes as thoughts rather than have some real thoughts of their own.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #189 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But... I wasn't talking about being able to choose your race. I was talking about the choice of whom to marry. 100% choice. Not an element of choice. 100% choice. Don't play ignorant, unless you really are.

A straight white man can, today, choose to marry a white woman or a black woman (or an Asian woman, or a Hispanic woman, etc., or no one at all). Until recently, in our glorious United States of America, it was as much as illegal for a white man to marry a black woman. The definition of marriage for general society was within a single race. Black people could marry black people and white people could marry white people. It was limited to that because of "social construct".

We changed the definition because that definition was bigoted and ignorant.



There you go again...making the argument that changing the definition of marriage for race is the same as changing it for orientation. The point, tonton, is that people sometimes do CHOOSE their orientation, whereas no one chooses his or race...unless you are Michael Jackson.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #190 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

BR, any argument you make based on religion is intellectually and even spiritually dishonest. Your "study" of religion began from a place of utter bias against it...and Christianity in particular. Therefore, any argument you make based on religion is bogus.

Wrong. My study of religion began during my own childhood indoctrination and simply has never ceased. And regardless of what you think my motivations are, they don't prevent you from finding evidence in your holy book that supports the values you claim it does. You use my alleged motivation as distraction because you either don't want to or can't find the passage I request.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #191 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Wrong. My study of religion began during my own childhood indoctrination and simply has never ceased. And regardless of what you think my motivations are, they don't prevent you from finding evidence in your holy book that supports the values you claim it does. You use my alleged motivation as distraction because you either don't want to or can't find the passage I request.

This is hilarious. Your "study" is bullshit because it comes from an already biased view. Oh, and as for "the passage," I could list several right here...all showing that marriage is between a man and a woman. Arguing that the bible allows gay marriage is laughably absurd. I won't play your game, though, because short of "God Almighty hereby prohibith gay marriage," you'll never accept it.

On a side note....hey guy! BR is now telling everyone what our religious views are!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #192 of 221
Thread Starter 
If I didn't exist, the passages in the Bible that support polygamy remain.

If I didn't exist, the passages in the Bible that show Jesus's opposition to marriage remain.

If I didn't exist, the passages you refuse to retrieve that support your worldview still are nowhere to be found.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #193 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If I didn't exist, the passages in the Bible that support polygamy remain.

If I didn't exist, the passages in the Bible that show Jesus's opposition to marriage remain.

If I didn't exist, the passages you refuse to retrieve that support your worldview still are nowhere to be found.

Don't make me do this BR. Don't make me humiliate you in front of everyone.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #194 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Don't make me do this BR. Don't make me humiliate you in front of everyone.

Go ahead. Point to the passages that prohibit polygamy and the myriad of other marriage types that I have cited in the Bible. And if you really do have such damning passages, why play this fucking game with me and just answer the question when asked? What purpose does that serve?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #195 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Go ahead. Point to the passages that prohibit polygamy and the myriad of other marriage types that I have cited in the Bible. And if you really do have such damning passages, why play this fucking game with me and just answer the question when asked? What purpose does that serve?

Watching you go batshit and try to use religion as part of your argument? Those are definitely in the upper part of my list.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #196 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Watching you go batshit and try to use religion as part of your argument? Those are definitely in the upper part of my list.

To recap...

ME: Gay marriage should be legal.

SDW: We can't redefine marriage because of our history and Judeo-Christian values.

ME: Well, contrariwise, marriage hasn't historically been one man one woman and your Judeo-Christian values aren't actually reflected in the texts from which they are allegedly drawn.

SDW: YOU'RE BIASED

ME: Right, but I'm just pointing out what's in the texts. Can you show me where it disagrees with what I'm saying?

SDW: YOU'RE BIASED

ME: You didn't answer the question. If I didn't exist, the evidence for my point of view would still be there.

SDW: HAHAHA DON'T MAKE ME EMBARRASS YOU!

ME: I call your bluff. Go ahead. Point to the passage.

SDW: HAHAHA LOOK AT YOU BEING ALL BATSHIT.


You made a claim involving religion. I say the religious texts don't support your claim. You then say that I somehow used religion as part of my argument. That's so ass-backwards it's not even funny. You incorrectly used religion as part of your argument and I pointed out that you haven't even read your own fucking holy book.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #197 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There you go again...making the argument that changing the definition of marriage for race is the same as changing it for orientation. The point, tonton, is that people sometimes do CHOOSE their orientation, whereas no one chooses his or race...unless you are Michael Jackson.

Trying to be polite here. Marriage is not about orientation. I can marry a lesbian if I want to. She can marry a gay man if she wants. It's not a question of orientation AT ALL.

It's a question about gender.

Now here's my question for you:

Can you choose your gender?
post #198 of 221
Thread Starter 
I think this is a complete diversion anyway. Gay marriage is no less wrong if someone chooses to be gay rather than if someone is born gay. It shouldn't fucking make a difference either way.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #199 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Trying to be polite here. Marriage is not about orientation. I can marry a lesbian if I want to. She can marry a gay man if she wants. It's not a question of orientation AT ALL.

It's a question about gender.

Now here's my question for you:

Can you choose your gender?

Marriage is about orientation for homosexual couples because there was no equal protection violation when it was exclusively about the sexes of the involved parties. As you note, (and as I have dozens of times) nothing prevented someone homosexual from getting married, they simply couldn't marry the party they loved due to their orientation.

So it wasn't previously about orientation but now of course it is about that.

It isn't about gender either as gender is about how one identifies as masculine or feminine. A person can indeed choose their gender, what they cannot choose is their sex. When someone declares they are lesbian and as a female act very masculine, they are choosing their gender. Being attracted to females does not require one to act "butch". That is a gender choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I think this is a complete diversion anyway. Gay marriage is no less wrong if someone chooses to be gay rather than if someone is born gay. It shouldn't fucking make a difference either way.

You are correct and you should note that genetics is a terrible basis for gay rights. We could discuss the proper basis of rights but you don't care to get into such issues.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #200 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Marriage is about orientation for homosexual couples because there was no equal protection violation when it was exclusively about the sexes of the involved parties. As you note, (and as I have dozens of times) nothing prevented someone homosexual from getting married, they simply couldn't marry the party they loved due to their orientation.

So it wasn't previously about orientation but now of course it is about that.

It isn't about gender either as gender is about how one identifies as masculine or feminine. A person can indeed choose their gender, what they cannot choose is their sex. When someone declares they are lesbian and as a female act very masculine, they are choosing their gender. Being attracted to females does not require one to act "butch". That is a gender choice.



You are correct and you should note that genetics is a terrible basis for gay rights. We could discuss the proper basis of rights but you don't care to get into such issues.

Thanks, Mr. Smartypants.

So my question for SDW is this: Can we choose our SEX?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Religious Absurdity Vol 1: "I'm not gay. Go ahead, measure my asshole."