Aside from the fact that Incest is a crime in which there is at least one party that is not capable of consenting (ie, mother and son/daughter, there is a degree of control on the part of the mother) or at least one party has more control over the situation than the other, you show that you're not fully capable of understanding the words "consenting adults."

If you remove the religious implications (sorry to punt you off your high moral horse down to the same level of the rest of us), you have to understand that incest is something happened under consent and encouragement of the Church (both Catholic, and other Protestant). As of now, most of the House of Windsor, who are the house of power in England, are over 90% haemophiliacs. The other thing: there is proof that inbreeding will produce destructive genetic deviations: Homosexuality is quite the opposite in that it will normally never produce offspring, and if it does, there is a high likelihood that any offspring will be made with unrelated donors because it will not normally be through consensual intercourse.

Quote:

Since we are talking about consenting adults here, with the part of the villain being played by various religious right-wingy groups, shouldn't we now explore the next step?

Should it be legal for a grown son to engage in sexual intercourse with his mother, marry her, and add her as a dependent to his insurance policy?

Well, this isn't something that anyone would call a savoury relationship. If it produced children they would have a higher likelihood of birth defect. I'm not going to judge if it were accidental, but with knowledge? Who's to say: I do not personally think that the son could consent because that is his mother you're talking about.

Quote:

How about two brothers, who just can't keep their hands off each other, and decide to tie the knot, and get added to the others insurance policy?

Again, who's to say: but there is a precedent in British courts where twins who were separated at birth had grown to love and married eachother, only to find out later, and the marriage was annulled. I haven't heard of it happening though, in the case of an older brother, there's the control factor there.

Quote:

What about a virile grandfather who just enjoys having a good ol' time with his slightly mentally handicapped granddaughter, who nevertheless, is a legal adult, ruled by the courts to have the rights to her own decisions. Should she be allowed to get it on with gramps, get married to the old-timer, and of course, sign of with his Blue Cross Blue Shield?

No because there's no CONSENT, again. The grandfather in that case was taking advantage of the child and her handicap.

What's with the Insurance angle?

Quote:

And since (horror of horrors), any right-wingish oppressive religious cult should suggest that marriage be between one man and one woman, why not allow a loving legal marriage between one man and 14 women? Who are you to oppress me with your definition of a nuclear family? How dare you use your Judeo-Christian values and pigeon hole me into some cookie cutter family unit.

I'd have to evaluate on that particular situation. In most cases of rampant polygamy where children under 14 are married off to MUCH older men (like in their 40's and 50's), there is an undue element of control exerted on the younger ones, and then you also include the paedophilia.

Quote:

Hey, since we've gone this far, since the traditional arguments are largely moral-religous based, why not permit 5 or more men to marry, get on all 5 insurance policies, have quintuple coverage, and never pay a copay again!

In the case of marriage, it's been defined in law as being only 2 people being joined. Otherwise, it's up to the insurer.

Quote:

Now please, instead of telling my why this scenarios wouldn't work, or how it doesn't happen that way in the Netherlands, please tell me Why people shouldn't be allowed to do these things.

Well, first:
- Netherlands actually has a working judicial system that does not condone paedophilia, and defines rape actually very similar to the US (except the statute states consent is at the age of 14 IIRC).
- Netherlands actually uses COMMON LAW as opposed to individual state/provincial law when concerning topics of consent/rape or other violation of trust issues.
- Netherlands is not, in fact Sodom nor Gomorrah... and neither is Massachusetts, nor California, nor Canada.
- During the situations you're talking about in the OP, you're forgetting that these all breach the Law in EVERY STATE. No state allows Polygamy; every state defines marriage as 2 persons (either without gender or with genders defined); and no state would condone a grandfather raping his grand-daughter, diminished capacity or not.

If you're talking about strictly the insurance angle, again, it's up to the individual insurer and insured. Some people (like me) find out that when they're working for some fortune 500 companies that they agree to be insured for X amount of dollars (in my case it was $750,000 or so) payable to the company out of my wages in the event of my death while working or travelling to work. I wouldn't have agreed to it if I was made aware of it, but then again I had to work... What does the Bible (more properly the Torah) say about that little violation?

Seriously, you're flapping your wings and posutlating the absurd to prove a point that is already wrong on its face.

Get over it Scott.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Doesn't gay marriage also break the law in most states, hence the point of trying to make it legal?

O noes!

Most states are considering allowing a Civil union type-thing: it would allow same-sex couples to live and have the same benefits as heterosexual couples.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

^^^now all we need to to is make any religious-based unions have no legal power whatsoever and have everything a civil union and it will be a great step forward.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

You keep bringing up the law....laws against polygamy, incest, etc. You say incest and polygamy are wrong because they are against the law in EVERY state. Ok, so is that why it is wrong?....because of the law. So, if society decides it isn't wrong, changes the law, then it is ok? What about before the law was changed? Was it wrong then? Were the gay people outlaws (sodomy laws) Were their rights being repressed because SOCIETY said what they were doing was wrong? We would say now, that laws against sodomy are wrong, and so we change them. Now what they are doing is LEGAL.

So, if SOCIETY changes the law agains polygamy, and allows consenting adults to marry as many husbands/wives or both, will that make it ok? If so, were they wrong it doing it before the law was changed? If you say yes, then the gay men were wrong for cornholing each other when the law was in effect. See what I'm saying.

You guys can't have it both ways.

PS. I threw the Netherlands bit in there randomly, but looking back, it shouldn't surprise me that someone here knows many nuances of the laws of the Netherlands.

.


.




“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

^^^I agree that mere legality has nothing to do with what's right and what's wrong. However people's current perceptions of right and wrong will often affect the law. Still being illegal/legal doesn't make something right/wrong.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Aside from the fact that Incest is a crime in which there is at least one party that is not capable of consenting (ie, mother and son/daughter, there is a degree of control on the part of the mother) or at least one party has more control over the situation than the other, you show that you're not fully capable of understanding the words "consenting adults."

If they're both adults, its still incest - but with your objection removed. In any case I think its gross but have no objection to people doing this if they really want to.

Quote:

Quote:

Since we are talking about consenting adults here, with the part of the villain being played by various religious right-wingy groups, shouldn't we now explore the next step?

Should it be legal for a grown son to engage in sexual intercourse with his mother, marry her, and add her as a dependent to his insurance policy?

Well, this isn't something that anyone would call a savoury relationship. If it produced children they would have a higher likelihood of birth defect. I'm not going to judge if it were accidental, but with knowledge? Who's to say: I do not personally think that the son could consent because that is his mother you're talking about.

Apparently you don't read much Shakespeare. I'm sure someone out there is quite attracted to their mother. Not my cup of tea but whatever. I see no reason that there would be no consent(unless the son is too young) although that is gross IMO
.

Quote:

Quote:

How about two brothers, who just can't keep their hands off each other, and decide to tie the knot, and get added to the others insurance policy?

Again, who's to say: but there is a precedent in British courts where twins who were separated at birth had grown to love and married eachother, only to find out later, and the marriage was annulled. I haven't heard of it happening though, in the case of an older brother, there's the control factor there.

Are you kidding me GAM?! The "older" twin aka the one that came out 15 minutes before the other twin is "controlling" the other by their so called age difference?! No matter their age - this is a ridiculous notion.

Quote:

What about a virile grandfather who just enjoys having a good ol' time with his slightly mentally handicapped granddaughter, who nevertheless, is a legal adult, ruled by the courts to have the rights to her own decisions. Should she be allowed to get it on with gramps, get married to the old-timer, and of course, sign of with his Blue Cross Blue Shield?

No because there's no CONSENT, again. The grandfather in that case was taking advantage of the child and her handicap. Well here I agree that the grandfather thing is a non-issue since being mentally handicapped, she likely isn't capable of giving consent - legality aside though, I think that does depend on her level of handicap. Some mentally handicapped people are still capable of making decisions and leading completely normal lives. Hell, some are capable being president of the USA for 2 terms. Many people who are mentally handicapped to some degree probably aren't even diagnosed because of this.

Quote:

Quote:

And since (horror of horrors), any right-wingish oppressive religious cult should suggest that marriage be between one man and one woman, why not allow a loving legal marriage between one man and 14 women? Who are you to oppress me with your definition of a nuclear family? How dare you use your Judeo-Christian values and pigeon hole me into some cookie cutter family unit.

I'd have to evaluate on that particular situation. In most cases of rampant polygamy where children under 14 are married off to MUCH older men (like in their 40's and 50's), there is an undue element of control exerted on the younger ones, and then you also include the paedophilia.

I think you misread him. He didn't say a 14 year old girl - he said marry 14 legal age girls. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's clinically insane!! I wonder enough about people crazy(or maybe brave/foolish) enough who marry even one...



I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

ScottaWhite wrote:You keep bringing up the law....laws against polygamy, incest, etc. You say incest and polygamy are wrong because they are against the law in EVERY state. Ok, so is that why it is wrong?....because of the law. So, if society decides it isn't wrong, changes the law, then it is ok? What about before the law was changed? Was it wrong then? Were the gay people outlaws (sodomy laws) Were their rights being repressed because SOCIETY said what they were doing was wrong? We would say now, that laws against sodomy are wrong, and so we change them. Now what they are doing is LEGAL.

No, Incest and Polygamy have a rooting in British Common-Law, basically because incest/inbreeding causes odd effects in the gene pool (like Tay-Sachs Disease, Haemophilia and other mutations). Polygamy usually involves the pluralization of marriages which was a no-no under the Anglican/Episcopalian churches: That's one of the societal constructs you mentioned, but at the time of Magna-Carta when it was addressed it was considered as a separation point from other religions like Islam, Shintoism and from the "filthy" races.

Quote:


So, if SOCIETY changes the law agains polygamy, and allows consenting adults to marry as many husbands/wives or both, will that make it ok? If so, were they wrong it doing it before the law was changed? If you say yes, then the gay men were wrong for cornholing each other when the law was in effect. See what I'm saying.

I see what you're getting at, and I don't buy it for a minute.

The US being a nation of LAWS and not PEOPLE nor RELIGION, and having the ability to create, rescind and amend those laws make it possible to change with the times. You can't say all men are created equal, and not extend the rights to everyone... Gays, blacks, women... the lot of them. That's like saying that black people only had 3/5 of a vote, and that lynchings were legal when there were no rights or access to a trial or legal representation. Part of being able to change with the times means being able to objectively look at your past, and rectify previous injustices. What you're talking about in the OP may be absurd, and in some future time, it may be deemed acceptable: for now, no. Much of it involves harming another party (the gay brothers thing: my mind is that it's not my business, Mom and son, it's victimizing your progeny).

Quote:


You guys can't have it both ways.

PS. I threw the Netherlands bit in there randomly, but looking back, it shouldn't surprise me that someone here knows many nuances of the laws of the Netherlands.

I don't know about the laws of the Netherlands per se, but in actually living there for about a month, I figured out that there wasn't any point in not learning some of the laws that governed the land. It's permissive, and open, and realistically, they're what the USA used to be: willing to experiment with the democracy they had.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Despite all your cut and pasting, and longwinded responses, you still cannot have it both ways.

Here's 1 question I would like you to answer. 100 years ago, would it have been wrong for two men to have sex with each other in America?

Now please, without trying to jump to a pre-conceived conclusion, just answer the question....and no, not like "wrong according to who, what or what religious body? Was it wrong. Answer it plainly the same way you would answer " Is it wrong to use racial slurs"



But I know you wont'....can't.....musn't ......smell a trap.



.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

How am I trying to have it both ways? You're going to need to define it because what I'm getting from you is:
- Incestuous marriages are wrong (despite it being okay in the Bible), and so are homosexual marriages.
- If homosexual marriages are okay then so must incestuous marriages.
- I'll justify that by going to the absurd and harmful extremes and make it even more absurd by introducing the unrelated subject of insurance.

What I am saying is that you're talking about imposing your moral values on people that aren't harming yourself or others. If 2 men that want to live together in matrimony (even if not holy) now, who cares about what happened or what the law was in the past? If a law which protected no one from harm and actually forced people do illegal things that are actually naturally occurring, what would that say about the society that condoned it? It was, unenlightened, sadistic, nosey... At least that's what I'd say about it... in fact I do say that about older society that used religious justification (and flawed interpretation: ie, abomination is a mistranslation in the latin vulgate, the hebrew translation of Leveticus's passage about homosexuality uses the same wording as the passages about shaving of beard and temple hair, and eating of fish without scales: it is unclean. The same word is mistranslated, but I guess an abomination is an abomination, put that shrimp down right now!!!)

Look, I'll be straight: if it's 2 consenting (as in not unduely influenced) adults doing whatever they want in their own bedroom and keeping it there, I don't care: If it's the brothers... whatever, it's not my business. Where I have the problem is when you're talking about grandfather and retarded child, that's pretty clearly rape. To a lesser extent the Mother and Adult Son idea is pretty clearly rape as well.

Anyhow: the answer to your question: No. In law it would have been wrong but again the law changes to reflect the society's values. Again to me: if they kept that to themselves, who cares? What business is it of yours to decide other people's morality if they're not harming someone else? On top of that: you do realise that up until about 150 years ago it was perfectly normal to see 2 men walking arm in arm on a street, right? No implication of homosexuality. I am not assaulting your belief system, I'm confronting your prejudices: I don't believe that homosexuals harm anyone in doing what they do to each other: I believe that making it harder for them to live their lives is no different than making it harder for Jews, Blacks or paraplegics to live their lives... No one has the right to harm others.

Oh, if you want to ask complex questions, you had better be ready for a complex answer. I quote posts because it confines my statement and answers to your statements and questions. If you're not prepared to read the full text of what I am writing, I suggest you confine your ideas and opinions to yourself.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

"Anyhow: the answer to your question: No. In law it would have been wrong but again the law changes to reflect the society's values." You did not simply answer the question...you had to leave a segway to explain yourself.

And somehow, in that entire post, amidst your postulating about examples of incest in the Bible, men walking arm in arm and my perceived predjudices, you still didn't and I don't believe can or will answer the question. If you can't read and respond the the question then I suggest you confine your ideas and opinions to yourself.

Here's 1 question I would like you to answer. 100 years ago, would it have been wrong for two men to have sex with each other in America?

If you say yes, at the time it was, but societies values changed and with it the laws, now making it perfectly ok.......

THEN....if societies values change to accept all of those bizarre situations as normal, and in turn pass laws to legalize them, then they are ok. Right?

So if the determining factor is the current law of the land, then gay marriages are wrong. And until societies elected officials pass laws making it legal, it will still be wrong.

And heres the biggie? Who determines right and wrong? Society? Ok, lets say I give you that one and we all bow down and worship the humanist golden calf. If that is the philosophy, then we must respect societal laws in other countries. (honor killings, slavery, apartheid, oppression of women in Islam etc.) If you disagree, then you are placing YOUR societal values above those of others, and that would make YOU the self-righteous oppressor of other peoples' liberties. If a man wants to sell his daughter to his neighbor for 2 cows and 4 goats, then that is his business...his societal mores say it is ok.

The fool hath said in his heart , there is not God. Others run their mouth and publicly identify themselves.

/


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

^^^I'll answer it simple enough for you. The law has NOTHING to do with right or wrong - despite idiot politicians trying to legislate their own sense of morality. Being illegal 200 years ago didn't make anything wrong or right. Homosexuals weren't doing anything to hurt anyone then nor now. Nothing wrong with it ever IMO.

As far as thinking that something is wrong just cause it was or wasn't illegal - well slavery used to be illegal. And for a time most people thought there was nothing wrong with it. That didn't make it right.

Is common sense really that uncommon?!




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

ScottaWhite wrote:"Anyhow: the answer to your question: No. In law it would have been wrong but again the law changes to reflect the society's values." You did not simply answer the question...you had to leave a segway to explain yourself.

Are you hard of readin'?
I'll highlight the answer for you, because you really need that much help.

Quote:

And somehow, in that entire post, amidst your postulating about examples of incest in the Bible, men walking arm in arm and my perceived predjudices, you still didn't and I don't believe can or will answer the question. If you can't read and respond the the question then I suggest you confine your ideas and opinions to yourself.

Posutlating my foot. There's book, chapter and verse notations. It helps when you're arguing a point from the bible's perspective that you actually KNOW the bible. Also, learn to use the quote function: it helps you not confuse your posts.

Scott A White wrote:Here's 1 question I would like you to answer. 100 years ago, would it have been wrong for two men to have sex with each other in America?

If you say yes, at the time it was, but societies values changed and with it the laws, now making it perfectly ok.......

THEN....if societies values change to accept all of those bizarre situations as normal, and in turn pass laws to legalize them, then they are ok. Right?

So if the determining factor is the current law of the land, then gay marriages are wrong. And until societies elected officials pass laws making it legal, it will still be wrong.
Oh lord... Admiral Ackbar where are you when I need you?
http://photo.gangus.com/d/26788-2/ackbar.jpg

There we go.

Cyclical reasoning for the lose.

Look, you're missing the bigger picture to what I'm saying so I map it out in crayon for you because hinting at it just plain ain't working. The law in as far as it goes being a construct of people is to help prevent injury of one person or people from others: When a law itself injures the person unduely, we must remedy it.

Simple enough? Again, learn to use the quote function.

Scott A White wrote:
And heres the biggie? Who determines right and wrong? Society? Ok, lets say I give you that one and we all bow down and worship the humanist golden calf. If that is the philosophy, then we must respect societal laws in other countries. (honor killings, slavery, apartheid, oppression of women in Islam etc.) If you disagree, then you are placing YOUR societal values above those of others, and that would make YOU the self-righteous oppressor of other peoples' liberties. If a man wants to sell his daughter to his neighbor for 2 cows and 4 goats, then that is his business...his societal mores say it is ok.

First off, you're putting words in my mouth, stop that. You're assuming a lot, and you're reaching pretty far at best. Please, do me the courtesy of actually reading this passage that I posted before, I won't hold my breath because you have yet to do that and show you actually understood what I said.

GAM wrote:Look, I'll be straight: if it's 2 consenting (as in not unduely influenced) adults doing whatever they want in their own bedroom and keeping it there, I don't care: If it's the brothers... whatever, it's not my business. Where I have the problem is when you're talking about grandfather and retarded child, that's pretty clearly rape. To a lesser extent the Mother and Adult Son idea is pretty clearly rape as well.

BTW, I'm not "worshipping the golden calf" as it were, I'm following what Jesus said... but you'll see that in a moment... Wait, maybe you won't. *gets the big red crayons ready*

Scott A White wrote:The fool hath said in his heart , there is not God. Others run their mouth and publicly identify themselves.

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Given this passage Scott, answer me this: How do you reconcile your hateful words and attitudes against your homosexual neighbours with what GOD said. Bare in mind that Leveticus was NOT GOD, his word was NOT LAW.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm <-- have a read. Please.

Before you post more bile, please, do me the courtesy of at least reading what I've said from the beginning... I haven't tried to tempt you into an insipid and absurd logical trap (thanks to Admiral Ackbar, he's great ain't he?), I haven't insulted you grievously (kid gloves, crayons are just for effect because you're just not getting it), and I've also not assumed anything that you haven't previously demonstrated before.

Dude, God gave you the ability to think for yourself. Use it once in a while: The Bible, as adulterated and mutlillated by editing as it is, is just a guide for your life. It's not the law or even the words of God from God or Jesus. The law changes, and so does the Bible year to year, and religious sect to religious sect.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Considering that we've been "following God's law" for some 2000+ years, and seeing how @!#$ up we are...i think it's obvious that either we're God's version of Jackass, or God is at least as incompetant as humans are (which is not surprising considering he supposedly made us in his own image--GIGO).

Besdies, anyone else here picturing God, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Perkwonas, and all the other top-level deities sitting around watching the human show, will all but God moaning in dissapointment; "AWWW MAN!!!! The dumb humans fell for the Bible Gambit again!!!!!" God, "I told you all it would be hilarious--just say that some book is your word and you'll watch them do batttle over it." Odin, "You'd think 2000 years later they'd learn not to live their lives worshipping a book of children's stories..." Perkwonas, "Someone get Theodore Geisel up here immedately--I have a plan..."




Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Dang.. the admiral didn't show up



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Dang, I missed a quote, and caught a few other problems... If a Mod sees this, could you help a brother out and just pop this post in place of my last one? Moral of the story, don't post @ work on IE.


Scott, before I start, I don't know what caused this, but your hating on Gays has no footing if you seriously call yourself a Christian. I'll prove that to you in a minute.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

ScottaWhite wrote:"Anyhow: the answer to your question: No. In law it would have been wrong but again the law changes to reflect the society's values."

You did not simply answer the question...you had to leave a segway to explain yourself.

I get to do that, it's an open forum.

Anyhow, are you hard of readin'? I'll highlight the answer for you, because you really need that much help.

Quote:

And somehow, in that entire post, amidst your postulating about examples of incest in the Bible, men walking arm in arm and my perceived predjudices, you still didn't and I don't believe can or will answer the question. If you can't read and respond the the question then I suggest you confine your ideas and opinions to yourself.

Posutlating my foot. There's book, chapter and verse notations. It helps when you're arguing a point from the bible's perspective that you actually KNOW the bible. Also, learn to use the quote function: it helps you not confuse your posts.

Quote:

Here's 1 question I would like you to answer. 100 years ago, would it have been wrong for two men to have sex with each other in America?

If you say yes, at the time it was, but societies values changed and with it the laws, now making it perfectly ok.......

It's called social evolution, it's part of the reason we don't have public executions, beating of women, or throwing Christians to the lions for entertainment.

Quote:

THEN....if societies values change to accept all of those bizarre situations as normal, and in turn pass laws to legalize them, then they are ok. Right?

So if the determining factor is the current law of the land, then gay marriages are wrong. And until societies elected officials pass laws making it legal, it will still be wrong.

Oh lord... Admiral Ackbar where are you when I need you?


There we go.

Cyclical baseless reasoning for the flaming lose.

Look, you're missing the bigger picture to what I'm saying so I map it out in crayon for you because hinting at it just plain ain't working. The law in as far as it goes being a construct of people is to help prevent injury of one person or people from others: When a law itself injures the person unduely, we must remedy it.

Simple enough?

Quote:


And heres the biggie? Who determines right and wrong? Society? Ok, lets say I give you that one and we all bow down and worship the humanist golden calf. If that is the philosophy, then we must respect societal laws in other countries. (honor killings, slavery, apartheid, oppression of women in Islam etc.) If you disagree, then you are placing YOUR societal values above those of others, and that would make YOU the self-righteous oppressor of other peoples' liberties. If a man wants to sell his daughter to his neighbor for 2 cows and 4 goats, then that is his business...his societal mores say it is ok.

First off, you're putting words in my mouth, stop that.
Second, You're assuming a lot, and you're reaching pretty far at best. Please, do me the courtesy of actually reading this passage that I posted before, I won't hold my breath because you have yet to do that and show you actually understood what I said, I even used small words.

GAM wrote:Look, I'll be straight: if it's 2 consenting (as in not unduely influenced) adults doing whatever they want in their own bedroom and keeping it there, I don't care: If it's the brothers... whatever, it's not my business. Where I have the problem is when you're talking about grandfather and retarded child, that's pretty clearly rape. To a lesser extent the Mother and Adult Son idea is pretty clearly rape as well.

BTW, I'm not "worshipping the golden calf" as it were, I'm actually following what Jesus said... but you'll see that in a moment... Wait, maybe you won't. *gets the big red crayons ready*

Quote:

The fool hath said in his heart , there is not God. Others run their mouth and publicly identify themselves.

Nice... Where did that come from again? Seems to me it wasn't God.

Try this one on for size, because it's actually what I was alluding to just above about following Jesus' words.

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Given this passage Scott, answer me this: How do you reconcile your hateful words and attitudes against your homosexual neighbours with what GOD said. Bare in mind that Leviticus was NOT GOD, his word was NOT LAW. I answered your question, answer mine, Elaborate all you like.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm <-- Please read this, for your own good.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, January 28, 2008 4:17 PM

Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

ScottaWhite wrote:Let us all go on the assumption that the United States should allow it, embrace it, and dare I say, even encourage it?

Since we are talking about consenting adults here, with the part of the villain being played by various religious right-wingy groups, shouldn't we now explore the next step?

Should it be legal for a grown son to engage in sexual intercourse with his mother, marry her, and add her as a dependent to his insurance policy?

How about two brothers, who just can't keep their hands off each other, and decide to tie the knot, and get added to the others insurance policy?

What about a virile grandfather who just enjoys having a good ol' time with his slightly mentally handicapped granddaughter, who nevertheless, is a legal adult, ruled by the courts to have the rights to her own decisions. Should she be allowed to get it on with gramps, get married to the old-timer, and of course, sign of with his Blue Cross Blue Shield?

And since (horror of horrors), any right-wingish oppressive religious cult should suggest that marriage be between one man and one woman, why not allow a loving legal marriage between one man and 14 women? Who are you to oppress me with your definition of a nuclear family? How dare you use your Judeo-Christian values and pigeon hole me into some cookie cutter family unit.

Hey, since we've gone this far, since the traditional arguments are largely moral-religous based, why not permit 5 or more men to marry, get on all 5 insurance policies, have quintuple coverage, and never pay a copay again!

Now please, instead of telling my why this scenarios wouldn't work, or how it doesn't happen that way in the Netherlands, please tell me Why people shouldn't be allowed to do these things.

.

First of all, I don't know why anyone accepts your premise.

Your premise - allowing gay marriages will be a slippery-slope leading to all kinds of wacky arrangements.

Assuming I accept your slipperly-slope theory ---------

I would suggest divorce was the first domino. Because marriage is already a terrible mess, and gays have had nothing yet to do with it. Further, some studies suggest the Christian divorce rate is actually MUCH higher than the athiest divorce rate (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm). I'll tell ya, these stats even bug me as a church-going guy myself, but I couldn't find anything to counter them.

And since every protestant religion I know of allows divorce, I suggest you talk to your pastor as why his marriage-support groups aren't doing their job and ruining marriage!

I think the only logical step for Christian Conservatives is to ban divorce. If they're so deeply concerned about the sanctity of marriage, they should set the standard with actions, not words. If they actually made that move, they'd take the sails out of the gay marriage issue by playing the part of "the villain", moving the entire issue to the right and freak everyone out!

Last point on this train of thought... divorce has it's roots in antiquity. So if gay marriage is indeed the next domino, we have a LONG time before the third domino falls in my guestimation.

On not accepting your slipperly-slope theory --------

I don't. It's a logical fallacy (look it up, again, I think I've asked you to do this in the past). See, you can run down a slipperly slope on nearly anything if you're imaginative enough.

Example - Let's say I don't maintain my car. My engine could freeze up w/o oil on the highway, causing me to go out of control, fly into oncoming traffic, the car I hit is John Conner's, and now the Terminators are assured to take over in 2011.






---

AGuSTiN wrote:
Example - Let's say I don't maintain my car. My engine could freeze up w/o oil on the highway, causing me to go out of control, fly into oncoming traffic, the car I hit is John Conner's, and now the Terminators are assured to take over in 2011.

That's EXACTLY what will happen if we let a Liberal in the White House in 2008!! Of course Obama is just gonna open negotiation with Skynet instead of mounting a human race defensive strategy. Then after eradicating all humans except Muslims, Skynet will enact a Socialist health care system for all robots. After that Skynet announces it will allow marriage for all robots - even GAY robots!! Worse still is that Al Gore will finally be announced as the OFFICIAL robot ambassador to all humankind(as opposed to his current de-facto position).

And this is what it will look like...





I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Bah.. skynet.

Skynet is fiction. C.A.T.S. is real.


AAAAAAAnd another quasi-religious thread defeated by logic... And the peasants rejoice




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

To the top for recent events.
And, a cartoon; because hey, everybody likes cartoons

And Bill, specifically, should really like this one. Cue use of "handlers" in 3... 2... 1...




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster