June 5, 2009

Homosexuality in the Bible

Stan gave me an article to read called "What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality"

To me, it appeared the article was a bunch of gripes and complaints about other people, without substance. Now, I agree people don't understand the Bible, as they should, but that has nothing to do with what the Bible says about gays.

The article claimed:

MARK 12:18-27
"If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir."


The whole passage was about the mistake just claimed here. 'He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err', and so does this article.

He said: "Actually, I'm not from Sodom. That city was buried beneath the Dead Sea centuries ago. I'm from California -- but perhaps that just confirms their suspicions!"

I am sure that Dani'El and I would disagree and Sodom is indeed in California.

This joker claims "Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom."

Pointless argument, because the Bible is clear about Sodom's wickedness as in Jude 1:7.

"But what does the story of Sodom say about homosexual orientation as we understand it today? Nothing."

I guess it would be pointless to talk of the etymology of the word sodomy also. Whatever dude.

"You'll also note that Romans 2 begins with "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." Even after he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that judging others is God's business, not ours."

That is not what the passage says at all. We are indeed to judge but not if we are doing the same things. You know "for thou that judgest doest the same things"

What's a malokois? ... Actually, ...Greek words have confused scholars to this very day.

No they haven't. First in Strong's its malakos and its clear that effeminate means 'of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man or of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness'. Again whatever.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

We have been down this road before in a past post. Of course we are to judge.

Although the prophets, Jesus, and other biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today, they are clear about one thing: As we search for truth, we are to "love one another."

Again, I have been down this road, but not in a posting, so I will say it again for this post. Do you believe that "Christian love" is to coddle people in their wickedness?

Do you remember what it says in Matthew 22:39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"

But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell.

The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." (emphasis added)

If you believe coddling is love then you are delusional. You must confront to show love to someone. Would I let you as a friend go and drink and drive? We will take the keys and get into your face if necessary to show that you are wrong. Get offended if you wish but I will not accept the evil wickedness of unrepentant sinning. God, nor I, condone sinning.

But the United States is not a nation governed by the Bible. Our nation is governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our laws were created to protect an individual's right to disagree.

Good point. So I have the right to disagree that gay marriage should be allowed.

In this last premise, I'm asking you who disagree with my stand on homosexuality to support my stand on full civil rights for all people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

From our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So yes our Creator gives us certain unalienable Rights and one of them is for a man to marry a woman as instructed in His Word, the ultimate authority for our Creator. (Gen. 2:18, 24, Ephesians 5:23-32,1 Corinthians 7:2)

Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Update: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality.

I guess I also should reference a past post to show my agenda and intentions to gay people.

172 comments:

  1. Has it not occurred to you that not everyone in America is a Christian? That not everyone agrees that the Bible is a good standard of conduct?

    Scientologists hate psychiatry. Would it be right for them to make a law that NOBODY is allowed to visit a psychiatrist?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It doesn't matter if they are not Christian. Marriage is a Biblical and sacred event from the beginning of time with Adam and Eve. A gift from God that cannot be compromised.

    Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are you this obsessed with people who don't rest on the Sabbath? (I was about to say Sunday instead of Sabbath but isn't the Sabbath Saturday?)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Flute:

    Homosexuality is not a member of the Ten Commandments, so even if Dan thought the Fourth Commandment needed such support, the analogy would not hold.

    Of course, he doesn't think the Fourth Commandment needs support, since the modern take on "exegesis" (which is, of course, eisegesis) stipulates that those commandments which were reinforced in the New Testament remain, while those which were not no longer apply. This is why, among other reasons, Christians don't feel required to become circumcised, or to abstain from pork, or to avoid wearing cotton-polyester blends.

    Be that as it may, your point is yet undiminished. While Dan needn't cry about the Fourth Commandment, since Jesus explicitly toppled that one both before and by his crucifixion (or so goes the theology), he should consider why he doesn't cry foul regarding adultery, the Seventh Commandment. As I said in a different post, I don't hear him bitching and moaning, and supporting a state- or federal- constitutional amendment to outlaw adultery...

    As far as all this is concerned, I'm curious to know just which OT commandments (be they part of the "Ten," or part of the extended Director's Cut) are paid the requisite lip-service in the NT, versus which are not. I'd bet that there are some OT commandments which Dan supports, yet which are not repeated in the NT, and I'd equally well bet there are OT commandments which Dan denies, which are also missing in the NT.

    Is there a list, then, or must I pursue the matter on my own?

    As for Dan...

    Marriage is a Biblical and sacred event from the beginning of time with Adam and Eve. A gift from God that cannot be compromised. 

    Poppycock.

    First, Adam and Eve are figments of your religious imagination. They are not figments of reality, at least not in the sense that you mean. If you mean to rest your argument on the existence of Adam and Eve as detailed in the opening chapters of your bible, then you have lost already. Whether you admit it or not, Young-Earth Creationism is by far and away the minority view -- which is mighty accommodating, really. YECs are nothing more than the lunatic fringe, equal in all rights with UFOlogists, holocaust-deniers, and Tom Cruise.

    If you would instead rest your case on the second statement, that marriage is a "gift from God that cannot be compromised," then you have also lost, since, per your own beliefs, the second generation of humans necessarily compromised on this "sacred" bond (if, indeed, there wasn't some first-to-second generational 'whoopee' going on). Following that, the earliest direct biblical account of polygyny occurs in the third generation of humans.

    Of course, in order for Cain to start "building a city," it stands to reason that inhabitants would be available, and if their number were sufficient to populate a city, then there must have been some polygynous relationships -- indeed, it would have been the rule, rather than the exception.

    So if you really mean to say that the status of marriage "cannot be compromised," then you'd better get back to reading your stupid book -- the first thing that happened to marriage was that it was compromised.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dan
    Your reply to the piece sent by Stan was just so predictable.
    Using biblical quotations to make your point while ignoring other biblical quotes that don't agree with your interpretation takes a certain set of stones.
    "Marriage is a biblical ....cannot be compromised"
    Young girls and women were sold for livestock.Sold into marriage

    ReplyDelete
  6. 50 years from now when gays are accepted as the human beings they are, Dan and his ilk will be saying that it was the Christians that put a stop to the bigotry.
    This is very predictable. Same as they do now with slavery and wonen's rights.

    Dan,
    Something has come up and I want to ask you a simple question.
    I will not challenge or argue with your answer.
    Can a Christian who has determined that evolution is valid science get into heaven?

    I don't want to impose on you but I need an answer on this for a friend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It doesn't matter if they are not Christian. Marriage is a Biblical and sacred event from the beginning of time with Adam and Eve. A gift from God that cannot be compromised.

    Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.


    Has it not occurred to you that not everyone in America follows the precepts of the Bible? That not everyone agrees that marriage is a sacred institution blessed by God?

    Religion is inherently self-centered. You think your religion is the correct one, so you wish everyone to live under the same religious rules as you, whether they are a member or not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Religion is inherently self-centered. You think your religion is the correct one, so you wish everyone to live under the same religious rules as you, whether they are a member or not. 

    You know, this is exactly right. Why would we bother to argue about homosexuality, or the marriage rights conferred upon homosexuals, from Dan's perspective at all? Who gives a shit what the bible says about homosexuality?

    If your religious perspective is shaping the way you vote, specifically in a conscious effort to restrict a whole class of person from receiving rights and/or benefits that you already enjoy, then you're wrong, and you're being unpatriotic in the process.

    Granted, I don't bandy about the 'patriotism' clause very often, and it tastes bad to do so now, but it is also appropriate in this sense. The U.S. was founded with a specific eye toward religious freedom, yet Dan here, and his homophobic buddies, are trying to use religious freedom to justify rights restrictions. That is as un-American a sentiment as I've ever heard.

    If god is really against homosexual marriage, then let him do something to stop it, but don't try to justify your prejudice by hiding behind him. He's invisible, for one, so we can still see you, and he's not frightening (since he's imaginary), for two, so we're again unimpressed. Indeed, if El Dani is right, it won't matter in a few months, anyway, so right now all you're doing is being a blowhard, and that's a symptom of pride.

    Using one's religion to discriminate against others is nothing new, but it's been tried so often, and it's so well-documented, that at this point it's a pretty ridiculous position to hold.

    Here's a concept: leave being god to god, and let others behave as they will. If you want to speak out against sin, do so, but don't seek to selectively restrict the rights of others to sin, as you currently do with respect to homosexuality -- and even then, you only do so with respect to the very compromisable aspects of marriage.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  9. It doesn't matter if they are not Christian. Marriage is a Biblical and sacred event from the beginning of time with Adam and Eve. A gift from God that cannot be compromised.
     
    Bull, Dan...Though I don't like using wikipedia (given how theoretically easy it is for anyone to corrupt it): Many religions claim credit for marriage.

    The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself. Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage.[14]

    Also note how marriage has already been changed repeatedly over time.


    Wikipedia's source for that quoted tidbit: Westermarck, Edward Alexander (1903). The History of Human Marriage. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London. ISBN 1402185480 (reprint).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry folks I am remodeling, with snags, so exhaustion ensued.

    I will address the comments soon but I just wanted to say that if you pass homosexual marriage it will open up Pandora's box. The Pro-Polygamists will fight for their civil rights also. "Polygamy Rights" will be the next headlines. So you must ask yourselves what would be next?

    Must rest my back...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan, reread what I just said about how marriage has already changed through the ages, so your "slippery slope" argument (a fallacy, I believe) is too late. It's already happening, in a way.

    Polygamy was a religious thing, wasn't it? The Mormons? Then there was the OT judeo-xian hero Solomon...

    Appeals to fear don't always work by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan:

         "I will address the comments soon but I just wanted to say that if you pass homosexual marriage it will open up Pandora's box. The Pro-Polygamists will fight for their civil rights also. 'Polygamy Rights' will be the next headlines. So you must ask yourselves what would be next?"
         "The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages (Penal Code, sec. 285; Civil Code, sec. 59; 42 C.J.S., Incest, s 1), and bigamy (Penal Code, sec. 281; Civil Code, sec. 61; Davis v. Beason, supra, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637; Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244)." Justice Shenk, dissenting opinion, Perez v. Lippold
         Your argument against same-sex marriage is very familiar. A quick web search shows remarkable parallels between the arguments against same-sex marriage and the arguments against interracial marriage. But this source, I am confident, you will not dispute. You're using "the same playbook." Right now, you seem to be winning. But morally, you are just the same as they were.

    ReplyDelete
  13.      Oh, yes, if you can read pdf files, this should be quite illuminating. As the saying goes "read it and weep."

    ReplyDelete
  14. I didn't know Dan was homophobic.
    I really thought you had 'some' senses.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't know why you Christians are trying so hard to impose your morality on others. From my experience, none of gay people I know try to turn me gay. (or try to put a stop on heterosexual marriage)
    You Christians actively try to turn gays into straights or oppose gay marriage.
    Whatever goes between two (or more) consensual individuals is none of your business. If they want to get married, let them get married.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It is rather humorous that Dan's marriage is quite the non-traditional marriage. St. Paul would not be happy with this arrangement.
    I can prove that.

    But, Dan will go to Paul and star applying his hermeneuticals in an effort to justify his wife being the head of the family.

    ReplyDelete
  17. By the way, on Friday the Nevada state senate over rode a veto by the Govenor to legalize civil unions.

    We'll look back in a few years and wonder what all the hullabaloo was about.

    By the way, Dan, my wife and I are not "married" We have a legal civil union from the state of PA. There is no superstitious or supernatural aspect to our decision to become life partners.
    There are very real advantages to having long term commitments.

    Marriage is a cultural artifact from some old book, I have heard they call it the bible.
    "marriage" is not even honored by most Christians as their divorce rate is the same or higher than anybody else.

    And don't worry, polygamy will never be legalized in your lifetime. It is not even an issue at all, except to consoiricists and alarmists like yourself.
    Trying to compare polygamy with gay marriage is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Froggie,

    Can a Christian who has determined that evolution is valid science get into heaven? 

    Why should I even answer this for you? Are you going to misrepresent my position over and over again like you do about science and gay people? You have some nerve.

    You said: "50 years from now when gays are accepted as the human beings they are" 

    Unbelievable! First, this makes no sense at all but If I am to take what you said as if these people are somehow subhuman for their actions then you are completely wrong yet again. I accept everyone as human beings. They are wicked sinners just like the rest of us. In fact they prove themselves to be human 'because' they sin.

    Even if someone was to never act on the gay tendencies they would still be very human because of their sinning (breaking Ten Commandments) daily.

    Now against by better judgment I will answer your question. It does not matter what a Christian believes or not believes, as long as they are Christian. One's Salvation depends on Christianity alone not any works by the person. Remember? It is a gift from God. I believe in a young earth but that will not effect my Salvation one bit if it proven that I was wrong.

    In the past I said: Look there could be a possibility of my interpretation of the Bible being wrong. I am a YEC because that is what is claimed in Genesis and the Ten Commandments (4th)...my belief in YEC has nothing to do with my Salvation at all. I am saved no matter what I believe about the detail of this universe, right or wrong. Besides... evilution pushes people away from God. Remember how to judge by its fruit? Well, to me that is horrible fruit and must be false or not of God.

    First get saved Froggie, and then worry about the details. Milk before meat.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pvb,

    You're using "the same playbook."  

    Ouch! That PDF, on the surface, appears to hurt but there is a world of difference here. Listen, I cannot find anything, not one single thing, in the entire Bible, about interracial marriage being wrong, but I find plenty on homosexual behavior being wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan,

    For your June 8, 2009 9:29 AM response; Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Devil's Chaplain,

    I didn't know Dan was homophobic. 

    Whatever dude. Wake up! It's because I love them that I am against their sinning.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Stan,

    If god is really against homosexual marriage, then let him do something to stop it, but don't try to justify your prejudice by hiding behind him. 

    This is a laughable argument and quite surprising from you. You are slipping dude. For fun, lets try that with anything else.

    'If god is really against pedophilia, then let him do something to stop it, but don't try to justify your prejudice by hiding behind him.

    'If god is really against murder and rape, then let him do something to stop it, but don't try to justify your prejudice by hiding behind him.

    So by your argument you are for it if God does nothing to stop it? Um OK then.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Froggie,

    I was reflecting on the evolution question and I wanted to make something clear.

    If someone denies God then you cannot be a Christian. So the essential doctrine requirements to be a Christian includes acknowledging God as the Creator of ALL things. God indeed made all things, owns all things, governs all things, for Himself. So a discussion about Young earth or old earth wouldn't effect someones Christianity. Denying that God Created the Universe and thus claiming a natural process just might.

    James 4:4 came to mind. Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Putting our faith in Christ acknowledges Him as the Creator.

    How can someone, as a Christian, believe mankind's interpretation of creation (evolution) without denying Genesis 1? It would be very hard to justify a belief in evolution without denying the Bible. So are their Christians that believe in evolution? Very good question. I don't think it would be possible. Do you? How can someone trust God's Word and deny it at the same time while being a Christian? Either you will trust man or God. Still a great question though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Froggie (con't),

    I am wrestling with this questions still. I am going to think that you get to be a Christian by repenting from sinning and believing in Christ not by believing in a literal 6 day Creation or the literal believe in the OT. So I will stand, for the moment, that you can believe in evolution and still be a Christian. That may change as I study the Bible more.

    For me that is too much of a fine line to walk though. One thing for sure is there is no such thing an neutrality in Christianity. You must pick a side. Either you will trust God's Word or you will not. (Matt 6:24)

    Luckily, I do not decide who will or will not be saved. But a belief in evolution may be risking Salvation. A compromise that is just not worth the risk.

    "If our contention that the evolution hypothesis is part of an antitheistic theory of reality is correct, then we must do away with every easy-going attitude. The evolutionist is then a soldier in that great, seemingly all-powerful army of anti-theists that has from time immemorial sought to destroy the people of God. We must then prepare for a life and death struggle, if not in the courts of the land, then in the higher courts of human thought." (Banner, 1931)

    Reformed.org said "The point that we must maintain as Reformed Christians is that He has already completed what He has to say. If God reveals a new word, then we could go away from the Bible. That is why feminists and evolutionists are listening to hear what "the Spirit" may be saying to the churches. That is why, when push comes to shove, we see an ever-widening embrace of other revelation, whether it is from nature or private spirits or the charismatic movement. They are trying to find another Word of God that will free them from this Word of God which they believe shackles-in their agenda. And it does shackle. Evolution fits their purposes so nicely. The appeal that Paul makes in I Timothy 2 is that Adam was formed first and then Eve. If evolution becomes accepted as dogma, the foundation of the commandment in I Timothy 2 goes with it. Everything is up for grabs. Each man does that which is right in his own eyes."

    interesting subject, after more research I will do a post about it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan:

         "Listen, I cannot find anything, not one single thing, in the entire Bible, about interracial marriage being wrong, but I find plenty on homosexual behavior being wrong."
         The difference is not so great as you would like to believe. You just apply eisegesis differently. This includes tha makers of "Strong's concordeance," with a similar agenda, pulling a definition out of thin air to support their purposes.
         "'If god is really against murder and rape, then let him do something to stop it, but don't try to justify your prejudice by hiding behind him."
         I know this was directed to Stan. But I can answer. I don't hide behind any god. I support laws against rape and murder because I oppose rape and murder. And I oppose them without appealing to any god. So, I agree. Don't hide behind your god. Speak for yourself. Your god is either impotent or disinterested. If he is impotent, I am unconcerned with his view, as he appears not to be a citizen anywhere in the world. He certainly has no business intruding into matters which do not concern him. It's not even part of a broader principle that might concern him. Same-sex marriage is between people who want to take part in it. There are no victims -- unlike, say, with rape, where there is most definitely a victim. If he is disinterested, then I am unconcerned with what you incorrectly portray as his view. That comes back to speaking for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is a laughable argument and quite surprising from you. You are slipping dude. For fun, lets try that with anything else. 

    Okay, so long as the comparisons you make are fair, and so long as you actually understand the critique...

    If god is really against pedophilia, then let him do something to stop it, but don't try to justify your prejudice by hiding behind him. 

    Oops. Sorry. Pedophilia differs from homosexuality in that homosexuality involves [the desire for] sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender, whereas pedophilia involves [the desire for] sexual relations between an adult and a minor. In pedophilia, one party is unqualified to offer consent.

    Of course, you've failed completely to understand the critique, but I'll get to that later.

    If god is really against murder and rape, then let him do something to stop it, but don't try to justify your prejudice by hiding behind him. 

    Again, no. Murder involves the non-consenting ending of another's life, so I fail to see any correlation between murder and homosexuality. Rape involves non-consenting sexual relations between a willing (forcing) subject and an unwilling victim. As with pedophilia, the comparison is neither fair nor accurate.

    Of course, pedophilia and rape are quite comparable... What did the bible say about rape, then? Specifically, what was the punishment for a Hebrew raping a non-betrothed Hebrew woman?

    I digress.

    As I noted, you have failed completely to understand the critique. If you wish to discriminate against, or show prejudice toward, a particular group, then by all means do so, and face the consequences. If you mean to hide behind your version of god to justify your prejudice, however, I implore you to make an argument, rather than appealing to an undetectable (if not imaginary) deity.

    Additionally, your rewording of my statement obfuscates further by replacing "homosexual marriage" with "pedophilia," "murder and rape." You have intentionally substituted acts of aggression -- victimful crimes, if you will -- in place of a completely peaceful, consenting, informed practice, which affects no one other than its participants in any meaningful way.

    So by your argument you are for it if God does nothing to stop it? 

    Straw man much? My "argument" -- which was not really an argument so much as a criticism of your modus operandi -- simply notes that if god doesn't bother to stop something, then using him to justify your prejudice is an exercise in futility. If you have an argument against homosexuality, or any other "sin," which does not base itself on the writings of bronze-age nomads, then present it. If not, then kindly STFU.

    There just isn't any point in using an impotent deity, who may have spoken in the past, but who is now dumb, to justify one's actions or beliefs... yet that's exactly what you do.

    This whole tact is misleading on your part, and it is dishonest. Please try again.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  27. I would like to say that I oppose gay marriage without appealing to God but I appeal to God with everything I do, so I cannot.

    There are no victims?

    Homosexual behavior is victimless really? Is that your position? Really? You both do understand that people that claim to being gay are harassed, threatened, killed, commit suicide (25% to 40% of young lesbians and gays have attempted suicide), have ramped drug use, and many diseases?

    In a study of depression and gay youth, researchers found depression strikes homosexual youth four to five times more severely than other non-gay peers. (Hammelman. T.L. 1990)

    Keep in mind also that they are the most frequent victims of hate crimes. I even read that 42% of homeless youth self-identify as gay/lesbian. Possibly due to conflicts in their families. So just because you accept their behavior doesn't mean everyone on the planet does.

    So with your logic you two would legalize, or make provisions for, prostitution since you may view that as a victimless crime?

    Before you answer, 2/3 of prostitutes were sexually abused from the ages of 3-16. More than 90% of prostitutes lost their virginity through sexual assault.(1) as children and they are harassed, beaten, or even killed by pimps and customers. They often use all their money to supply their ramped drug use.

    These lifestyle choices are far from victimless.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ho. Ly. Crap.

    I don't even know where to begin with that nonsense. I'll have to take a break, and analyze it later...

    Wow.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dan:

         "You both do understand that people that claim to being gay are harassed, threatened, killed..."
         That just shows that the "good christians" that harass, threaten, kill homosexuals commit crimes that have victims and that, right now, homosexuals are their targets. Make no mistake, if there were no homosexuals, they would find other targets. Christianity is not victimless.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dan,

    THEY KILL THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY ARE TREATED LIKE SHIT BY THEIR PARENTS AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I would like to say that I oppose gay marriage without appealing to God but I appeal to God with everything I do, so I cannot. 

    This is patently false. You appeal to the bible when it speaks to a particular issue, and you appeal to [your fractured sense of] logic, or some religious authority figure, when it does not. As the most recent passages of the bible were written approximately two thousand years ago, the multitude of technological breakthroughs which have taken place are necessarily ignored in the bible, and thus you must apply “exegesis” (which, of course, is eisegesis) to come up with ‘reasonable’ statements which you will claim are in keeping with it.

    On birth control, then, you do not appeal to the bible, but to some outside source. On abortion, even, you do not appeal to the bible (though you think you do), but to an outside source. (Since the process of conception was completely unknown to biblical authors, no statement in the bible can truly be applicable to the controversy surrounding abortion.) On many other issues, too, you do not appeal to the bible, but to some set of outside sources. While you may argue that god is one of these outside sources, this, too, is clearly false, else the many disparate versions of Christianity would not so boisterously disagree on so many seemingly trivial issues. If you insist that you appeal to god, then you also must insist that any Christian who disagrees with your position – as established by your personal revelation from god – is wrong, and they are therefore either not Christians (True Christians™, in your vernacular), or they are [temporarily and selectively] deluded by either some demonic influence or some mental illness.

    After all, a house divided against itself cannot stand, right?

    You both do understand that people that claim to being gay are harassed, threatened, killed, commit suicide (25% to 40% of young lesbians and gays have attempted suicide), have ramped drug use, and many diseases? 

    So... homosexuality is not victimless, because there are people who commit crimes against them? Is that really your “argument”? Is this your demonstration of “logic”?

    Is ‘being a nerd’ also a victimful crime? After all, being a nerd is a choice, and nerds are harassed, threatened, killed, commit suicide...

    (Psst. It’s rampant, not “ramped.” Spellcheck is worthless – it will not correct for usage or grammar.)

    Is being a stockbroker a victimful crime? Stockbrokers are harassed, threatened, killed, commit suicide, have rampant drug use, and many diseases...

    Are you fucking serious here? Are you not remotely aware that you’re snarkily accusing homosexuals of deserving harrassment?

    No, dipshit. Harrassment is not a victimless crime. Threats of violence are not victimless crimes. Murder is not a victimless crime. In the case of homosexuals being the targets of these crimes, the homosexual is the victim, as you so densely note, but not of homosexuality, but of the actual fucking crime.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Regarding suicide attempts, drug use, and disease, if people like you would quit ostracizing them, and apparently endorsing harrassment, they probably wouldn’t feel as though suicide were the only way out. If homosexuality were accepted, and parents like you didn’t disown their out-of-the-closet children, they’d probably not be so prone to drug use. If sexual responsibility, including prevention methods, weren’t actively blocked by morons like you, their disease rates would likely be far lower.

    Granted, this crap about disease is only true in specific locations. In Africa, STDs are much more common among heterosexuals, or didn’t you know?

    Keep in mind also that they are the most frequent victims of hate crimes. 

    So... we should outlaw that kind of victim, or should we maybe punish the criminals? Seriously. What the fuck.

    [J]ust because you accept their behavior doesn't mean everyone on the planet does. 

    No one is asking you to accept their behavior – it doesn’t affect you, remember? Rather, you’re being asked to stop picking on them, and let them make the behavior “decisions” you let anyone else make. If one or more of your children ever chooses to inform you that he/she is gay, then I’d ask you to accept their behavior – at least, to not make them feel like shit. Of course, if your statements here are any indication, I’m guessing the damage will long since have been done before the “coming out” ever took place. If one of your kids did determine they were gay, your parenting will likely contribute to the high rate of suicide amongst gays.

    As I said, the request is that you allow them to live as you live. No more. Homosexuals already have the right to live together, and to sleep together, and do whatever they please together. The subject at hand has nothing to do with homosexuality, per se, but instead with the inclusion of homosexuals in the set of federally recognized rights associated with marriage. Personally, I couldn’t care less what “gay marriage” is eventually called, and I think arguing over the name is trite. Arguing over the rights, however, is meaningful, and an argument they should, and will, eventually win.

    So with your logic you two would legalize, or make provisions for, prostitution since you may view that as a victimless crime? 

    In principle, prostitution, drug use, and other socially awkward practices are victimless, but in practice, they tend to produce victims nonetheless. This isn’t a result of the practice itself, however, but of the social stigma attached, and of the number of victims produced by other, far more sinister practices. If child abuse weren’t so easy to perpetrate, or if drugs were regulated, the problems would be far fewer. In Nevada, where you are fully aware prostitution is legal, the problems associated with “illegal prostitution” are virtually nonexistent. In Amsterdam, as an easy example, the problems associated with drug use, or with prostitution, are likewise mitigated by regulation. The social taboo against prostitution, or against drug use, is lessened to the point of transparency, and yet the system is largely unaffected – at least, it is not adversely affected, as you would no doubt assert.

    Your little poorly though-out rant here shows us something, though. It shows us that you lack completely an ability to reason. It shows that you will go to any length – even to calling the victim an accessory to the very crime to which he has been subjected – to defend your ludicrous position.

    No one -- no one -- is asking you to endorse homosexuality, any more than anyone asks you to endorse “open” marrages. The latter, in the current system, is offered various federal rights afforded to married couples, despite clearly denying your form of “traditional” marriage. The former, for reasons yet unknown, are denied those same rights.

    What gives?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  33. I cannot stand it when people try to say 'it's equal rights.' Not only is marriage NOT a right, but telling gays they can't get married is no more discriminatory and doesn't violate their civil rights anymore than telling someone they can't marry their mother, or their brother, or their grandparents.

    ReplyDelete
  34. As White Christians under the God of Israel, we shouldn't marry outside our race:

    Jeremiah 13:23: "Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil."-


    Deuteronomy 22:9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."-

    Deuteronomy 7:2-3: "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.


    Also so-called "inter-faith" marriages are right-out. Don't be un-equally yoked.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Theological Discourse said...
    I cannot stand it when people try to say 'it's equal rights.'

    Most homophobic bigots don't like it.

    "Not only is marriage NOT a right,"

    Yes it is a right.

    "but telling gays they can't get married is no more discriminatory and doesn't violate their civil rights anymore than telling someone they can't marry their mother, or their brother, or their grandparents."

    Society does not condone incest.
    To "marry" is merely a silly religious convention.
    Gays have long term relationships for the same reason heteros do.

    Grow up.

    ReplyDelete


  36. Yes it is a right.

    Really, care to prove that? show me in the constitution perhaps?



    Society does not condone incest.
    To "marry" is merely a silly religious convention.
    Gays have long term relationships for the same reason heteros do.

    Grow up.

    Hilarious.

    1. incest has nothing to do with marriage, they can engage in incest outside of marriage as well, so you didn't even acknowledge the point. We don't want people to marry their brothers or sisters, are you discriminating against them? is that a violation of their civil rights?

    2. society does not condone homosexuality either. So you have no point. Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I cannot stand it when people try to say 'it's equal rights.' Not only is marriage NOT a right... 

    Although I disagree with your sentiment, you are correct. Marriage is not a right any more than driving an automobile is a right. The two are privileges, but these privileges bring with them new sets of rights, privileges, and responsibilities.

    ...but telling gays they can't get married is no more discriminatory and doesn't violate their civil rights anymore than telling someone they can't marry their mother, or their brother, or their grandparents. 

    This is a false analogy. Your first statement:

    ...telling gays they can't get married [to the unrelated partner of their choice]... 

    is not equivalent to:

    ...telling someone they can't marry their mother, or their brother, or their grandparents. 

    The former class of individual -- gays -- can get married, but only as a sham wedding. Ironically, you anti-gay marriage types don't seem to care about those weddings, which happen all the time between couples seeking only to enjoy the rights associated with the privilege of marriage.

    The latter class of individual -- the one who desires an incestuous marriage -- is forbidden not because of gender, but because of closeness of the bloodline. The reason for forbidding this kind of marriage is completely unrelated to the "reasons" for forbidding same-sex marriages.

    The former class, then and again, is restricted from the rights and privileges associated with marriage, when it comes to marrying the non-related partner of their choice. This is a civil rights issue, as a particular group is excluded in a clearly discriminatory manner.

    As I have said, though, I don't care a whit what the eventual term is for same-sex marriages, so long as they are provided the exact same opportunity to enjoy the rights and privileges afforded to "swinger" couples, sham wedding couples, Hollywood marriages, shotgun marriages, etc. Despite the bullshit nature of these perfectly acceptable heterosexual marriages, those who are so married enjoy various rights and privileges which are denied the homosexuals who are trying to honestly marry their partner.

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  38. In spite of the "arguments" against same-sex marriages spilled onto this thread, none of them answers the question as to why non-Christian marriages of heterosexual couples are allowed, why sham weddings of heterosexual couples are allowed, why "open" marriages of heterosexual couples are allowed, or why any of the various other forms of bastardized marriages of heterosexual couples are allowed, while this legitimate desire to have homosexual marriages included is restricted.

    WHY? 

    Where is your protest against drunken Vegas weddings? Where is your protest against "convenience" weddings? Where is your protest against pagan weddings? Where is your protest against "gold-digger" weddings?

    Back to STD quickly -- he raised the question as to whether seekers of incestuous marriages were likewise having their rights violated. This is a valid question, and the answer is, "yes."

    Incest is a cultural taboo which permeates virtually every known society of humans, and while the technical reasons are genetic, the cultural reasons are not. Is it a taboo thing? Yes. Should it be outlawed amongst consenting adults? No.

    Anyway, I remember reading about some important patriarch who married his half-sister... I can't remember his name...

    Oh, I also remember reading that the genealogy of [arguably] the most significant person in human history contains father-daughter incest. What was that guy's name?

    If consenting adults wish to enjoy the rights and privileges afforded to married couples, they should be allowed to do so. While gay couples, incestuous couples, heterosexual couples, and every other sort of pairing of consenting adults conceived can all enjoy those rights by execution of a legal contract, the marriage contract automatically provides all of those rights, and is recognized in all fifty states without question.

    If I were legally assigned Power of Attorney over my unrelated friend, I would still have to produce proof in the form of paperwork in order to execute that power. If the person was instead my wife, all I would need to produce is my identification and a document listing me as her "spouse," and all further questions are waived.

    Call it what you want, but the simple method of identifying another adult as one's spouse, and conferring all of the legal rights and privileges which go along with that status, should be as difficult for one person as it is for another. Either eliminate the rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual marriages, or extend them to homosexual marriages. The religious implications of marriage need not be affected in the slightest -- your objections due to scripture, then, are moot.

    Why, then, do you still object?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  39. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16.

    Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    ReplyDelete

  40. Although I disagree with your sentiment, you are correct. Marriage is not a right any more than driving an automobile is a right. The two are privileges, but these privileges bring with them new sets of rights, privileges, and responsibilities.

    Not all privileges get to be enjoyed by everyone, fact of life.


    The latter class of individual -- the one who desires an incestuous marriage -- is forbidden not because of gender, but because of closeness of the bloodline. The reason for forbidding this kind of marriage is completely unrelated to the "reasons" for forbidding same-sex marriages.

    you're confusing incest with marriage. Not only does marriage not = incest, incest happens outside of marriage as well, so that point is moot. One can make the argument(using the logic of the pro gay marriage people) that 'marriage between brother and sister, mother and and child etc. etc.' is an equal rights issue, whether or not they have sex is irrelevant to that, since one can easily say 'ok you can get married, we recognize that, but now you cannot have sex.' Even with that however inbreeding does NOT = child defects, so incest is not a problem. The same sex argument also works for people wanting to marry their own siblings or offspring, it even works for pepole that want to marry animals!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Thanks Jill, marriage is a right. Recognised if you in a country that is a member of the UN.

    T.D., do you even read what you type?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Marcus Wellington, what the?

    ReplyDelete

  43. T.D., do you even read what you type?

    This does not qualify as a coherent logical rebuttal. You can either refute what I said, agree with it, ignore it, or just try illogical irrational ways to make what I said not look logical and sound.

    Looks like you chose the last option. Typical ignorant athiest.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This does not qualify as a coherent logical rebuttal. You can either refute what I said, agree with it, ignore it, or just try illogical irrational ways to make what I said not look logical and sound.

    Looks like you chose the last option. Typical ignorant athiest.


    I'm a Christian and I think you're retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  45. It's not that I'm against non-Whites but the Bible tells us not to mix.

    Jeremiah 13:23: "Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil."

    ReplyDelete
  46. Going by your profile I suspect you are just an ignorant atheist pretending to be a Christian. This right here is a dead giveaway.

    Lose your friends, lose the job, you don't need 'em. Read the Bible. NOW.

    If you're not an atheist pretending to be a Christian, then you are an extremely uneducated Christian.


    I'm a Christian and I think you're retarded.

    thinking I am retarded is one thing, as you are entitled to think whatever you want to think, proving I am retarded, or something I have said is retarded is another. Can you do that? prove one thing I said in my prior posts wrong.


    Jeremiah 13:23: "Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil."

    It pains me too see a Christian(if you are one) quote the bible as ignorantly as atheists do. What does that scripture have to do with not mixing? where in that scripture does it say anything about not mixing?

    ReplyDelete
  47. you're confusing incest with marriage. 

    No, but you're confusing whatever it is that you do when you look at these posts, with reading.

    Try again, junior.

    [The same sex argument] even works for pepole [sic] that want to marry animals! 

    Wow. You are retarded. Show me just how the argument that 'consenting adults should be afforded the rights and privileges of marriage' somehow applies to bestial marriages.

    Better yet, just go away, dumbass.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  48. Going by your profile I suspect you are just an ignorant atheist pretending to be a Christian. This right here is a dead giveaway.

    Lose your friends, lose the job, you don't need 'em. Read the Bible. NOW.


    No. That's all true. I quit my job to preach the gospel to White people. Where God leads He feds. I've lost a lot of friends because they can't handle the Law. They don't want the Gospel.
    But you don't need 'em.
    Where God guides, He provides.

    ReplyDelete
  49.      Flute said, "thanks Jill, marriage is a right. Recognised if you in a country that is a member of the UN," referring to a post by Jill that effectively rebuts TD's claim. Interestingly, TD ignores all of this. Instead, he prefers to latch on to the snarky comment Flute makes after the reference and say that the snarky comment is not a rebuttal. Well, it isn't; but it isn't meant to be.
         In the same fashion "typical ignorant atheist" is not a coherent rebuttal to anything. By the standard that TD just set up for Flute, TD is a "typical ignorant theist" and nothing he says has merit. Of course, this is his standard, not mine. And he could the honest thing and recognize (or perhaps try to challenge) the actual rebuttal. What I have seen suggests he will do no such thing. He has already refused to concede points that he said he would concede (given evidence.) Instead he "moves the goalposts."

    ReplyDelete
  50. T.D.,

    In case you don't know it, no religious entity or representative thereof can legally "marry" anyone in the United States.
    The document legalizing the marriage is obtained from the State where the marriage is documented.

    Performance of a marriage ceremony with witnesses and a person recognized by the state to have the authority to perform marriage ceremony. The recognized person can be a priest, rabbi, minister, judge, or Indian Trible Chief. Lierally anyone that wants to be certified to do marriages can acquire the certification over the internet.

    All that is required of he "ceremony" is that a recognized person sign the license along with one or two witmesses.
    There is no impied religious connotation.
    In Nevada, two people can walk into the magistrate's office, pay for the license, have it signed by the magistrate or any one of hundred's of certified "Marriers" and walk out married with no ceremony whatsoever.
    There is no religious requirement for marriage in the US. All "marriages" are Civil Unions.

    You keep barking about incest and people marrying their pets.
    If you have to dig that deep into absurness to find an argument, you have no argument.

    ReplyDelete

  51. No, but you're confusing whatever it is that you do when you look at these posts, with reading.

    Try again, junior.

    This does not qualify as a coherent rational rebuttal. Try again.


    Wow. You are retarded. Show me just how the argument that 'consenting adults should be afforded the rights and privileges of marriage' somehow applies to bestial marriages.

    Better yet, just go away, dumbass.

    Once again, this does not qualify as a rational coherent rebuttal. I know it sucks that the same logic applied to supporting gay marriage can be used to support incest and people marrying animals, now beside using your own personal opinion, tell me why they shouldn't get married?

    ReplyDelete

  52. You keep barking about incest and people marrying their pets.
    If you have to dig that deep into absurness to find an argument, you have no argument.

    Hilarious, this does not qualify as a rational, coherent rebuttal either. No one here has refuted anything I have said, furthermore your whole comment is irrelevant. it must suck that all you have to do is have a 'certificate on the internet' to get married, it is so easy, just log on, get the certificate and BAM! and yet even when it is so easy gays still can't get married huh?


    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16.

    HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
    If you're going to cite that as some proof of a 'right to marry' then you've already lost.

    "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion,"


    It says without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion. Nothing in there about sexual orientation, the people that wrote that in December 10, 1948 were talking about traditional marriage. Gay marriage wasn't even an issue back then, it didn't happen at all. So the historical evidence and document itself proves that gays have NO right to marry each other. If marriage is a right and this document proves it, homosexuals are not entitled to that right. Good job proving yourself wrong.

    ReplyDelete

  53. If consenting adults wish to enjoy the rights and privileges afforded to married couples, they should be allowed to do so. While gay couples, incestuous couples, heterosexual couples, and every other sort of pairing of consenting adults conceived can all enjoy those rights by execution of a legal contract, the marriage contract automatically provides all of those rights, and is recognized in all fifty states without question.

    Good, nice to know you're at least consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I would like to see the other ignorant atheists be as consistent as stan and start fighting for incestuous marriage as well.

    BTW stan, you're being ignorant again. The patriarch you refer to never married his half sister, she was never his sister, he told her to call herself his sister so they wouldn't kill him. You're once again proving yourself ignorant. Furthermore, was the incest condoned? just because the genealogy of Christ had incest in it does not mean the incest is condoned, in fact the OT specifically condemns incest.

    Leviticus 18:7-17
    Deut 22:30

    so once again you have no point, just because people in the bible engaged in it does not make it right. More atheist ignorance, doesn't surprise me one bit.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I'd also like to point out, the UN does not equal the US constitution, so marriage is still NOT a right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally biding so Jill has no point at all.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Marcus,

    Re: Jeremiah 13:23

    It's not that I'm against non-Whites but the Bible tells us not to mix. 

    I sure thought you were being a Poe at first...now not so sure.

    You are completely off base. With all these verses that you quoted for your argument they are all taken out of context. Jeremiah 13:23 is taken out of context within the verse even. It speaks of being evil not color of skin. Read verse 27 to help you out. Any verse can be taken out of context to be bent to a belief.

    This eisegesis method you choose is wrong, because it renders you with a capricious attitude towards the Bible. It may even be breaking the 2nd Commandment and making a god to suite yourself.

    Be very careful of what you are doing. If it is a joke then fine. You got me. Now move on.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You all need to understand the underlying agenda here. It has been shown how abusive the homosexual couples are to children. Yet the data is repressed as to not show how damaging it really is.

    Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality. To the tune of 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children.

    That is a staggering figure and may prove my own theory of environment and upbringing to be the root cause of such behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  58. TD,
    "and yet even when it is so easy gays still can't get married huh?"

    In case you didn't notice, Same-sex marriage has been legalized in six of the 50 states:

    In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, same-sex marriage is legal and currently performed.
    In Vermont, same-sex marriages will begin on September 1, 2009.
    In Maine, same-sex marriages will begin on or around September 14, 2009, pending a possible people's veto.
    In New Hampshire, same-sex marriages will begin on January 1, 2010.

    The trend will continue despite bigots like you. hehe

    "I'd also like to point out, the UN does not equal the US constitution,.."

    The costitution does not mention marriage which is an inaliable right.
    The constitution does not mention innocent until proven guilty plus many other rights we enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Froggie,

    In case you didn't notice, Same-sex marriage has been legalized in six of the 50 states: 

    "The legalization of same-sex marriage—which is being considered by voters in several U.S. states—is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more individuals living a homosexual lifestyle.

    Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior." (Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.)

    ReplyDelete

  60. The costitution does not mention marriage which is an inaliable right.
    The constitution does not mention innocent until proven guilty plus many other rights we enjoy.

    innocent until proven guilty is a legal right you ignorant atheist. Marriage is not a right PERIOD. It isn't even a legal right, it definitely isn't an civil right and has nothing to do with equal rights at all. You and the rest of the supporters of gay marriage are just too ignoarnt to realize that. Now why don't you follow suit with stan and start fighting for incest marriages as well?


    The trend will continue despite bigots like you. hehe

    Atheist logic strikes again. Disagreement does not = bigotry. Looks like we have another ignorant atheists failure to recognize simple distinctions between words. Furthermore the 'trend' ended in california, flordia, and other states that don't legalize it, so you have no point at all.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dan,
    "Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced."

    Of course you can't name the studies.

    ReplyDelete
  62. TD,

    Disagreement does not = bigotry.

    Brilliant truth! I wonder if they actually will be stand up enough to admit that.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Froggie,

    Of course you can't name the studies. 

    That is why I linked to the article. At the bottom the resources are listed.

    For Example:

    Langstrom, N., Rahman, Q., Carlstrom, E., & Lichtenstein, P. (2008). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: A population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I said:

    The latter class of individual -- the one who desires an incestuous marriage -- is forbidden not because of gender, but because of closeness of the bloodline. The reason for forbidding this kind of marriage is completely unrelated to the "reasons" for forbidding same-sex marriages. 

    STD responded with:

    [Y]ou're confusing incest with marriage. Not only does marriage not = incest, incest happens outside of marriage as well, so that point is moot. 

    To which I in turn replied:

    No, but you're confusing whatever it is that you do when you look at these posts, with reading.

    Try again, junior.
     

    Which STD answered by saying:

    This does not qualify as a coherent rational rebuttal. Try again. 


    I'm sure most of the participants here can clearly see what has happened, and what STD has done -- or failed to do, as it were. He failed entirely to comprehend my statement concerning "incestuous marriage," wherein I quite explicitly discussed not 'incestuous relationships,' but incestuous marriage. When confronted with a statement mocking his lack of comprehension, STD is far too busy insulting his peers to practice any humility, or self-criticism whatsoever.

    Adding to all of this irony, then, is STD's repeated mantra that a particular response is not a "coherent rational rebuttal." I suppose it would help, STD, if you could actually demonstrate an ability to identify a "coherent rational rebuttal." Clearly, it would help if you were able to demonstrate an ability to understand the statements made, versus the tactic of force-feeding straw men, which you currently employ.


    Following the above exchange, STD then added more excrement to the towering spire of same (upon which he no doubt lives), when he responded to the following statement:

    Show me just how the argument that 'consenting adults should be afforded the rights and privileges of marriage' somehow applies to bestial marriages. 

    ...by offering the following:

    I know it sucks that the same logic applied to supporting gay marriage can be used to support incest and people marrying animals, now beside using your own personal opinion, tell me why they shouldn't get married? 


    You see, again STD has demonstrated the whole of his wit, which is far less than half mine. He asserted that the argument I make for allowing same-sex marriage can likewise be used to support bestial marriage. He made this assertion without anything in the way of argument, and when asked to provide an argument, he simply repeats the assertion, ignores the question, and changes the subject entirely, by asking for a reason -- other than my own opinion -- why [incestuous couples and those who practice bestiality] shouldn't be allowed to marry.

    The evidence, like his bullshit, is piling up. STD either cannot, or does not, comprehend the arguments and statements placed before him, which results in his epically failed comments.

    STD: You asserted that my argument for supporting same-sex marriage can be used to support bestial marriage. If you truly believe this, and if it is as trivial as you imply, then let's hear it. I readily admit that incestuous marriage between consenting adult siblings (or other close sanguine relatives) is a taboo circumstance that should nonetheless be allowed [based on this argument alone]. I do not endorse such relationships, but absent another argument against it (which other arguments do exist), this argument does indeed allow for that sort of marriage...

    ...but that's your hang-up, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Finally, STD put his size nines into his gaping maw when he said:

    BTW stan, you're being ignorant again. The patriarch you refer to never married his half sister, she was never his sister, he told her to call herself his sister so they wouldn't kill him. You're once again proving yourself ignorant. Furthermore, was the incest condoned? just because the genealogy of Christ had incest in it does not mean the incest is condoned, in fact the OT specifically condemns incest. 

    Who's ignorant?

    From Genesis 11:29:

    Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai 

    [Note: We all know that Abram and Sarai became Abraham and Sarah -- I don't need to reference that, too, do I?]

    Genesis 20:12:

    Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. 

    So Sarah was Abraham's half-sister, they were married, and this sibling incest was evidently endorsed -- certainly, there was no mention of wrong-doing based on the incest.

    What's more, a simple genealogical diagram will show the following regarding that family pole:

    1. Abram/Abraham married his half-sister, Sarai/Sarah

    2. Nahor, brother to Abraham and Sarah, married his niece, the daughter of a third brother (Haran)

    3. Isaac's wife, Rebekah, is also his cousin's daughter; Rebekah's grandfather is Isaac's uncle

    4. Jacob married his mother's nieces (Leah and Rachel), or, alternatively, his father's cousin's granddaughters

    What was it you had said?

    You're once again proving yourself ignorant. 

    Oh yeah.

    Whatever, moron.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  66. This is pretty funny. TD hasn't made a logical argument yet.
    All he's got is inuendo, hyperbole, alarmism and name calling.
    Dan, you look like a genius next to this fuckwit. :>

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dan,
    June 10, 2009 12:38 PM

    Thanks. I'll check it out this evening.

    ReplyDelete
  68. STD,
    In reference to Stans reply to you.

    Ouch! That had ta hurt.........:>

    ReplyDelete
  69. There have been some comments regarding the fact that a marriage is a civil union, including some mention of the requirements to "officiate" the ceremony. One of these comments was so grossly misunderstood by STD that it begs a response:

    [I]t must suck that all you have to do is have a 'certificate on the internet' to get married 

    This is not the case, and it is not what was described. In fact, Froggie's description was erroneous, but even then STD has no real excuse for so blatantly misreading it.

    As one who has served as the officiant before, I can tell you that the rules and requirements to become "certified" to perform marriages vary from state to state. In Washington state, where I officiated a wedding, the requirement is merely that the couple have a valid marriage license -- procured from the state, through the county clerk -- and that the license be signed by witnesses. Indeed, a sham wedding is recognized as valid if a marriage license is obtained and signed, and at least one of the parties to be married believes the wedding is not a hoax.

    There is no requirement on the officiant whatsoever.

    Froggie's primary point, as I understood it, was that a marriage is not a religious ceremony, though provisions are often made such that a marriage can include one. The license itself is separate -- in good keeping with the First Amendment -- from the ceremony. In any state, I could, even as an atheist, apply for and receive "certification" to officiate a wedding ceremony, if certification is indeed required. The First Amendment fairly guarantees this.

    The issue is not, then, a matter of religious interference, but a matter of civil rights, and privileges as human beings. STD is correct when he says that not everyone is entitled to enjoy all privileges, but where restrictions exist, the reasons should not be based on personal a personal or religious creed. Insofar as homosexuality is a not-completely-understood phenomenon (that is, we may debate the issue of 'nature versus nurture' with respect to sexual orientation), the decision to marry a specific partner is a deeply personal choice, which should only have as restrictions the requirement that both parties be consenting adults. Other aspects often associated with marriage (child-rearing, child-bearing, adoption, etc.) are still available for debate, but the legal status of marriage, and the federal rights granted to married couples with respect to one another, should not be restricted based on the gender of the parties involved.

    Also, STD, for the record, I am not "fighting for" incestuous marriage, but I freely admit that marriages of that sort should not be prohibited based on the argument I am making in favor of same-sex marriage. Prohibitions against close sanguine relationships (including marriage) should exist, but are unrelated (pun intended) to same-sex marriage.

    As to your assertion regarding bestial marriage, we're still waiting for you to apply the argument as you so boastfully claim can be done.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  70. Disagreement does not = bigotry.

    Brilliant truth! I wonder if they actually will be stand up enough to admit that.
     

    Dan, no one is calling anyone else a bigot based merely on the fact that we disagree. That would be contemptuous in the extreme, and there is only one extremely contemptible person participating in this thread.

    Rather, the label of 'bigot' applies based on the proclaimed reasons you and STD (and perhaps others) state for opposing same-sex marriage. It is perhaps presumptive, but absent a cogent argument against same-sex marriage which does not beg the question, or implicitly ignore the lack of opposition to various heterosexual marriages which are worse, in your 'book,' than same-sex monogamous marriage, that title fits.

    Lastly, before I get to helping my wife with the housework, Froggie is right, regarding STD:

    Dan, you look like a genius next to this fuckwit. 

    Agreed.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dan:

         "Disagreement does not = bigotry."
         True, but seeking to deny equal protection / treatment under the law is. As you and TD are seeking to deny homosexuals the right / priviledge of marriage, you qualify. You and especially TD are being judged on your tactics, not on the fact that you disagree.
         Here's another point. Disagreement does not equal ignorance. I wonder if you will be able to admit that. TD clear cannot. He responds to anyone who disagrees with him with "typical ignorant atheist." (Disagreement does not equal atheims either.)

    ReplyDelete
  72. Funny, I just found some of the negative effects of gays in nature also.

    Gay penguins steal eggs from straight couples

    ReplyDelete
  73. Now I see evidence in nature that being gay is a choice!!

    "That all ended when Scrappy, a single female newly arrived from SeaWorld in San Diego, caught Silo's eye...Silo promptly (dumped Roy) moved in with Scrappy, building a new nest with her."

    Mwahahahah- You see? Encouraging wrong behavior is wrong. It confuses the confused.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dan:

         A better link would be to the New York Times article. The reliability of Fox News ranks just abover the National Enquirer.

    ReplyDelete

  75. I'm sure most of the participants here can clearly see what has happened, and what STD has done -- or failed to do, as it were. He failed entirely to comprehend my statement concerning "incestuous marriage," wherein I quite explicitly discussed not 'incestuous relationships,' but incestuous marriage. When confronted with a statement mocking his lack of comprehension, STD is far too busy insulting his peers to practice any humility, or self-criticism whatsoever.

    Stan the ignorant atheist thinks he has a point. How ironic he mentions the difference between incestuous relation ships and incestuous marriage, because that is EXACTLY what I was talking about first, here is my original comment.

    TD: incest has nothing to do with marriage, they can engage in incest outside of marriage as well, so you didn't even acknowledge the point. We don't want people to marry their brothers or sisters, are you discriminating against them? is that a violation of their civil rights?


    So I was originally talking about the incest marriage, not incest sex. The 2 are different things. As i said before and which ignorant stan has not refuted, I'll break them down for him and the rest of the ignorant atheists that frequent this site.

    1. 'marriage between brother and sister, mother and and child etc. etc.' is an equal rights issue.

    2. whether or not they have sex is irrelevant, since the incest (sexual relationships) go on whether or not their married. Even with that however inbreeding does NOT always lead to birth defects, if the parents have no bad genes then the child will NOT have birth defects.

    Ignorant stan has NOT refuted any of that, instead he is confused thinking I couldn't tell the difference between incest marriage and incest relationships when I was the one the one that brought up that very difference in the first place!

    0/1 for ignorant stan

    ReplyDelete

  76. You asserted that my argument for supporting same-sex marriage can be used to support bestial marriage. If you truly believe this, and if it is as trivial as you imply, then let's hear it.

    Using the logic of pro gay marriage advocates, these people have the rights and denying their right to get married to their pets is a violation of equal rights. Humans that love their pets have the same rights as humans that love other humans, restricting love to humans only is a violation of their equal rights.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I grow weary trying to educate you, STD. You have got to be the dumbest, most dim-witted, loudmouth of a Christian I have ever come across in my online musings.

    [Note: I have avoided many online forums specifically to forego interaction with STD's type; hence, I do not visit TWeb, RaptureReady, etc.]

    If you could read and comprehend the posts in this thread, you would have noted that, despite your asinine claim to the contrary, I did not confuse an incestuous relationship with marriage, and that I did not make it sound as though you were so confused either. Rather, I specifically and explicitly made clear the fact that I was discussing not an incestuous relationship, but an incestuous marriage.

    What I'm getting at, and what STD is too preoccupied with insulting people to see, is that I preempted STD's drivel about incestuous relationships versus incestuous marriage. His little diatribe here, though, has served his intended purpose: to obfuscate the scathing ass-beating he just took.

    STD is a tool and a troll, and I would appreciate hearing some of those in his corner actually saying so. Dan has remained extremely silent on the topic of STD's trollery since his obnoxious appearance on the Constitution thread, and has only once (to my knowledge) actually supported anything he had to say. I would very much like to hear what Dan has to say about STD's claim that Abram/Abraham did not engage in an incestuous marriage with Sarai/Sarah, and I would very much like to hear Dan rebuke his 'friend,' or to explicitly endorse him, as the case may be.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete

  78. Finally, STD put his size nines into his gaping maw when he said:

    Stan once again shows his ignorance. Sarah was not Abraham half sister.

    Genesis 12

    “Indeed I know that you are a woman of beautiful countenance. 12 Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Please say you are my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you.”

    she was only called his sister so he would live. So Stans ignorance is exposed, AGAIN.

    She is called a 'half sister' because back then when a woman is married to a man, she is then formally adopted by his father as a full daughter as well. It was customary for the daughter-in-law to be officially adopted as a full daughter in case her husband is to die while she is traveling with his family. Two counts of stans ignorance.

    What's more, a simple genealogical diagram will show the following regarding that family pole:

    Whoopsie, stan is not ignorant of Christian theology which states that in those times incest was acceptable because:
    1. there was no other way to populate the human race.
    2. The genes were pure since they were close decedents of adam and eve who were created with uncorrupted pure genes.

    Neither of that applies today.

    After the human race was populated enough, God declared incest to be wrong

    Leviticus 18:7-17
    Deut 22:30

    So stan has no point again. Stan is just being another ignorant atheist who thinks he has a point, and the other ignorant atheists cheer and clap because they being more ignorant than stan, believed he had a point.



    Froggie's primary point, as I understood it, was that a marriage is not a religious ceremony, though provisions are often made such that a marriage can include one. The license itself is separate -- in good keeping with the First Amendment -- from the ceremony. In any state, I could, even as an atheist, apply for and receive "certification" to officiate a wedding ceremony, if certification is indeed required. The First Amendment fairly guarantees this.

    Finally I have to comment on this nonsense. I never once misunderstood what froggie said at all, I was mocking his ridiculous logic.

    Stans entire arguments against me are based on ridiculous assumptions. He first assumes that I misunderstand something then proceeds to build an argument off of that. Only ignorant atheists such as himself and the people that post here can accept that sort of 'reasning' and 'logic' as valid. Hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Using the logic of pro gay marriage advocates, these people have the rights and denying their right to get married to their pets is a violation of equal rights. Humans that love their pets have the same rights as humans that love other humans, restricting love to humans only is a violation of their equal rights. 

    Bzzt. Nice try, dipshit.

    My argument, which I suspect is roughly equivalent to that of the "pro gay marriage advocates" you straw man here, is that any two consenting adults should be afforded the rights and privileges marriage currently offers. Your worthless misrepresentation above does nothing to affect that, unless you are arguing that animals can make known their consent to marry a human, and that there is a species-specific age at which an animal becomes an adult.

    Seriously, kid, you'd do well to just sit back and read, rather than opening your big mouth immediately prior to inserting your tiny feet.

    Fuck, you're stupid.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete

  80. Rather, I specifically and explicitly made clear the fact that I was discussing not an incestuous relationship, but an incestuous marriage.

    That's what I was discussing you ignorant atheist, I was always discussing that. Furthermore you DID try to make it seem like I was confused, your statement here:

    He failed entirely to comprehend my statement concerning "incestuous marriage," wherein I quite explicitly discussed not 'incestuous relationships,' but incestuous marriage. When confronted with a statement mocking his lack of comprehension,


    So you're completely incorrect and very ignorant at that.


    What I'm getting at, and what STD is too preoccupied with insulting people to see, is that I preempted STD's drivel about incestuous relationships versus incestuous marriage. His little diatribe here, though, has served his intended purpose: to obfuscate the scathing ass-beating he just took.
    wrong, another ignorant comment. I was the first to talk about the difference between the 2 in my response to ignorant froggie here:


    1. incest has nothing to do with marriage, they can engage in incest outside of marriage as well, so you didn't even acknowledge the point. We don't want people to marry their brothers or sisters, are you discriminating against them? is that a violation of their civil rights?

    so there was no preemption by ignorant stan. It was simply stan confusing marriage with sex, me pointing that out to him, him then getting confused assuming that I was confused between the 2, then me correcting him again and showing him his ignorance and now he has used this to cover up his stupidity.


    STD is a tool and a troll, and I would appreciate hearing some of those in his corner actually saying so. Dan has remained extremely silent on the topic of STD's trollery since his obnoxious appearance on the Constitution thread, and has only once (to my knowledge) actually supported anything he had to say. I would very much like to hear what Dan has to say about STD's claim that Abram/Abraham did not engage in an incestuous marriage with Sarai/Sarah, and I would very much like to hear Dan rebuke his 'friend,' or to explicitly endorse him, as the case may be.

    And of course, ignorant stan in the end appeals to my attitude and to other people, neither of which have any bearing upon the validity of anything that I have said. He has not refutated a word that I have said, all he can do is comment on my attitude and name calling and try to appeal to other people. Both of which is illogical, ignorant, and shows his inability to refute what I say in any honest, logical, rational, knowledgeable way. You are ignorant, you, froggie, pvblis, are all deeply ignorant, your posts and everything you say PROVES that.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Stan once again shows his ignorance. Sarah was not Abraham half sister. 

    ...

    [S]he was only called his sister so he would live. So Stans ignorance is exposed, AGAIN.

    She is called a 'half sister' because back then when a woman is married to a man, she is then formally adopted by his father as a full daughter as well. It was customary for the daughter-in-law to be officially adopted as a full daughter in case her husband is to die while she is traveling with his family. Two counts of stans ignorance.
     

    Congratulations, dumbfuck, you've just proven to all who venture here that you're an incompetent ass. If you're too stupid, or too daft, to read the biblical passages I fucking quoted for you, and if you're too much of an imbecile to know your own religion's stories, then I cannot help you, nor can anyone else, I'll wager.

    I'd guess there is no one here who will defend this nonsense, as you've done nothing more than expose yourself for the fraud we all knew you were. The next time you begin to reflexively type the word "ignorant," you should take a hard look in the mirror.

    I'll not do your work for you, though. Scroll up if you're unconvinced of your own folly, and click the links there provided.

    Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  82. STD, you still have not shown that claiming rights for a same sex marriage equated the rights to marry your pet.

    You said,"Humans that love their pets have the same rights as humans that love other humans, restricting love to humans only is a violation of their equal rights."

    I guess you missed the part where it is an agreement between to consenting adults, not the rights of a single adult. Unless the animals you speak of have learned to talk, understand what marriage is and capable of making a legal commitment, then you have no argument. Marriage is about the rights and the choices of to adult. Animals do not fit this category.

    You're logic amazes me.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete

  83. My argument, which I suspect is roughly equivalent to that of the "pro gay marriage advocates" you straw man here, is that any two consenting adults should be afforded the rights and privileges marriage currently offers. Your worthless misrepresentation above does nothing to affect that, unless you are arguing that animals can make known their consent to marry a human, and that there is a species-specific age at which an animal becomes an adult.

    Ignorant stan makes a blunder. The logic of gay marriage supporters is as follows.

    1. Marriage states that marriage is between a man and a women.

    2. gay marriage advocates want to change that to suit their needs.

    3. So it logically follows that if one group can change it to suit their needs, why can't another?

    4. the adults that want to marry their pets have the same rights to marry whom they love and who makes them happy as heterosexuals do.

    6. By refusing to allow them to marry you are violating their rights.

    Now besides your own personal opinion, what do you have to refute that?

    ReplyDelete

  84. Congratulations, dumbfuck, you've just proven to all who venture here that you're an incompetent ass. If you're too stupid, or too daft, to read the biblical passages I fucking quoted for you, and if you're too much of an imbecile to know your own religion's stories, then I cannot help you, nor can anyone else, I'll wager.

    I'd guess there is no one here who will defend this nonsense, as you've done nothing more than expose yourself for the fraud we all knew you were. The next time you begin to reflexively type the word "ignorant," you should take a hard look in the mirror.

    Notice how ignorant stan did not refute anything I've said. He just insults, my insults are not only backed by evidence, I also refute what people say while making said insults.

    ReplyDelete
  85. TD:
    "Whoopsie, stan is not ignorant of Christian theology which states that in those times incest was acceptable because:
    1. there was no other way to populate the human race.
    2. The genes were pure since they were close decedents of adam and eve who were created with uncorrupted pure genes."

    Almost right. There are two creation stories in Genesis. One is the creation of the White race. The other is the creation of the non-whites. Adam and Eve had the breath of the Lord breathed in them (which means they had souls).
    So they were two groups of people. the Pure gene'd ones. And the dark ones. Eve was decived and had the evil child, Cain. Cain's decendants are the non-whites.

    Some verses that might clear it up.
    Genesis 3:1-21; Matthew 3:7; 13:24-30, 36-43; Matthew 23:33; John 8:38-44; Acts 13:6-10; 2 Corinthians 11:1-3; and 1 John 3:12.

    ReplyDelete

  86. I guess you missed the part where it is an agreement between to consenting adults, not the rights of a single adult. Unless the animals you speak of have learned to talk, understand what marriage is and capable of making a legal commitment, then you have no argument. Marriage is about the rights and the choices of to adult. Animals do not fit this category.

    I guess you missed the part where it says 'marriage is between a man and a women.' You wanting to change the status quo to support one group is logically no different than other people wanting to change the status quo to support another group. Other than your own personal opinion what do you have to refute what i said?

    Your lack of logical consistency amazes me, as does your historical ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  87. 1. Marriage states that marriage is between a man and a women. 

    Heh.

    I've never seen the work of this "Marriage" fellow. Who is he/she, and where can I read his/her work?


    Seriously. "Marriage" doesn't 'state' anything. Marriage is a word, designated by English-speaking humans to have various meanings in the past, up to and including the present. In other languages and other cultures, it has other meanings, both in the past and now.

    Of course, STD's Freudian slip is noted, as at one point marriage did indeed connote the marriage of a man and several women...

    Really, though, STD's straw man has already been exposed: marriage, as understood today in the U.S., involves the consenting civil union of two adults. At present, that generally refers to a male and female, but STD must know that will change, and thus his fear-mongering rhetoric is explained.

    What I wonder now, though, is what would happen -- that is, what would Dan and STD say -- if a man underwent a sex change operation, and then married another man. Would Dan et al deny this, too, or would they claim it is "different" somehow?

    What if a bona fide man, after marrying a bona fide woman, had a sex change operation. Would the marriage between the two now-women be null and void, or would the two have grandfathered through a same-sex marriage clause?

    What if a born-man married a born-woman, had a sex change, got divorced, and married a born-man? Would the now-woman be the ex-husband of one, and the wife of the other?

    Do you not see the absurdity of restricting marriage as your Christian 'sensibilities' dictate? Two consenting adults. Nothing more, nothing less. This is marriage. This includes same-sex marriage, and includes incestuous marriage -- the fleas come with the dog.

    If a desire to restrict the child-bearing, or child-rearing, rights of married couples is introduced -- specifically, to deny same-sex couples, or incestuous couples, from having, raising, or adopting children -- I'll hear your proposal and comment accordingly. Bear in mind, however, that such restrictions would necessarily be applicable to non-incestuous heterosexual couples, too, which may work to your disadvantage...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete

  88. Heh.

    I've never seen the work of this "Marriage" fellow. Who is he/she, and where can I read his/her work?


    Seriously. "Marriage" doesn't 'state' anything. Marriage is a word, designated by English-speaking humans to have various meanings in the past, up to and including the present. In other languages and other cultures, it has other meanings, both in the past and now.

    Look at this, 3 paragraphs about my mistake. Hilarious. Not a single refutation though. So stan fails here.


    Of course, STD's Freudian slip is noted, as at one point marriage did indeed connote the marriage of a man and several women...

    uh oh, stan makes an ignorant comment about polygamy. This of course has nothing to do with the current topic, another stan failure.


    Really, though, STD's straw man has already been exposed: marriage, as understood today in the U.S., involves the consenting civil union of two adults. At present, that generally refers to a male and female, but STD must know that will change, and thus his fear-mongering rhetoric is explained.

    Hilarious. I asked stan to REFUTE WHAT I SAID and that is the best he came up with.
    Once again you logically inept ignorant atheist. You wanting to change the status quo to support one group is logically no different than other people wanting to change the status quo to support another group. There was no straw man, you're just to ignorant to refute what I said so you just label it a strawman to try and cover up your complete and utter lack of a coherent response.


    Do you not see the absurdity of restricting marriage as your Christian 'sensibilities' dictate? Two consenting adults. Nothing more, nothing less. This is marriage. This includes same-sex marriage, and includes incestuous marriage -- the fleas come with the dog.

    Laughable. Like I said, logically if you can change the status quo to support your personal feelings and ideas, please give me something OTHER THAN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION that prevents people wanting to marry their pets from doing the same? this is not a refutation at all, just ignorant stan trying to pass his PERSONAL OPINION off as a valid point.

    If a desire to restrict the child-bearing, or child-rearing, rights of married couples is introduced -- specifically, to deny same-sex couples, or incestuous couples, from having, raising, or adopting children -- I'll hear your proposal and comment accordingly. Bear in mind, however, that such restrictions would necessarily be applicable to non-incestuous heterosexual couples, too, which may work to your disadvantage...

    don't try to change the topic you ignorant atheist. You still need to provide something OTHER THAN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION as to why pet lovers can't change the status quo of marriage to suit their needs, oh and another persons personal opinions don't count(no matter how many you might find). Something logical, some sort of obejctive evidence, facts.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Pet's aren't people. They are not a man. They are not a 'women'.

    TD, quit. You're making yourself look stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Hilarious. I asked stan to REFUTE WHAT I SAID and that is the best he came up with.
    Once again you logically inept ignorant atheist. You wanting to change the status quo to support one group is logically no different than other people wanting to change the status quo to support another group.


    TD - I am curious. If it were 100 years ago and we were talking about allowing interracial couples to marry (i.e. changing the "status quo"), would you say that allowing interracial couples to marry is logically no different than allowing beastiality? Why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
  91. TD, quit. You're making yourself look stupid. 

    It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth (or, in this case, tap one's keyboard) and remove all doubt.

    The refutation, dear child, is in the fact that marriage involves consenting adults. The moment you gain legal consent from Fluffy, you may marry him.

    As to your latest vomit stream...

    [The association of polygamy with marriages of the past] of course has nothing to do with the current topic, another stan failure. 

    Actually, fuckwad, it is highly relevant. Your number one item was that "Marriage states that marriage is between a man and a women." This is, at best (and corrected), an admission that the definition of "marriage" is pliable. Marriage doesn't "state" anything, as I've ridiculed, but even if it did, what is "states" today is quite different from what it has "stated" in the past. Ergo, what it "states" in the future may also be different, up to and including provision for same-sex marriage.

    To wit, you are a complete bumbling fool.

    You wanting to change the status quo to support one group is logically no different than other people wanting to change the status quo to support another group. There was no straw man, you're just to ignorant to refute what I said so you just label it a strawman to try and cover up your complete and utter lack of a coherent response. 

    Actually, the position STD is "arguing" against -- that same-sex marriage advocates must admit bestial marriage advocates into their camp -- is a straw man, if he insists that the position can be applied in such a manner. He is deliberately misrepresenting the position by omitting the fact that a marriage involves two consenting adults.

    Thus, he is a fuckhead.

    Like I said, logically if you can change the status quo to support your personal feelings and ideas, please give me something OTHER THAN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION that prevents people wanting to marry their pets from doing the same? 

    Like I said, a marriage -- today, anyway -- involves two consenting adults. If you are arguing from a position of arranged marriage, in which one or both parties is coerced into accepting the union (if their consent is even sought), then your position would allow for bestial marriage. My position, and that of all same-sex marriage advocates of whom I am aware, is that a marriage involves two consenting adults. Just what aspect of that can you not wrap your puny little brain around?

    Why do I bother with this imbecile?

    Jesus titty-fucking Christ this dumbfuck is annoyingly dense.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  92. Theo'Dis:
    I'm sorry I asked you "if you read what you type".
    It's just that your "arguments" are so bizarrely worded, fallacious and full of childish insults that's it's hard not to insult you.
    I shouldn't have descended to your level. I'm sorry.

    ReplyDelete

  93. The refutation, dear child, is in the fact that marriage involves consenting adults. The moment you gain legal consent from Fluffy, you may marry him.

    This is not a refutation, you didn't even address the point.
    Once again, you ignorant atheist, you are trying to change the status quo to support your position, so please tell me how can you tell people that want to merry their animals that they cannot change the status quo either?
    Let me break it down to you in ignorant atheist terms.

    1. The status quo is marriage is between a man and a women.

    2. you are trying to change that to be 'between 2 consenting adults'

    So please tell me using logic, facts, evidence etc. not your own personal opinion, why people supporting marriage between an adult and an animal can't change the status quo as well?


    Actually, fuckwad, it is highly relevant. Your number one item was that "Marriage states that marriage is between a man and a women." This is, at best (and corrected), an admission that the definition of "marriage" is pliable. Marriage doesn't "state" anything, as I've ridiculed, but even if it did, what is "states" today is quite different from what it has "stated" in the past. Ergo, what it "states" in the future may also be different, up to and including provision for same-sex marriage.

    To wit, you are a complete bumbling fool.

    Thanks for proving my point you ignorant atheist. Using your own logic. what is "states" at one point is quite different from what it has "stated" in the past. Ergo, what it "states" in the future may also be different, up to and including provision for same-sex marriage and provision for humans to marry animals as well.


    Actually, the position STD is "arguing" against -- that same-sex marriage advocates must admit bestial marriage advocates into their camp -- is a straw man, if he insists that the position can be applied in such a manner. He is deliberately misrepresenting the position by omitting the fact that a marriage involves two consenting adults.

    Stan once again builds his own straw man by labeling my own argument a straw man, he simply REFUSES to refute or address my arguments. Sam sex advocates are trying to change the status quo, so please tell me why bestiality advocates can't do the same? That has always been my argument. You're trying to change the status quo from 'man and a women' to '2 consenting adults.' Now please tell me why it can't be changed from '2 consenting adults' to '1 adult and an animal'? or from 'man and a women' to '1 adult and an animal'?

    As of now, the status quo per the defense of marriage act which was signed and became a law in 1996 states marriage is between a MAN AND A WOMEN. You are trying to change that status quo to '2 consenting adults' why can't bestiality advocates change the status quo to '2 consenting adults or 1 consenting adult and an animal'


    Like I said, a marriage -- today, anyway -- involves two consenting adults. If you are arguing from a position of arranged marriage, in which one or both parties is coerced into accepting the union (if their consent is even sought), then your position would allow for bestial marriage. My position, and that of all same-sex marriage advocates of whom I am aware, is that a marriage involves two consenting adults.

    Ignorance at its finest here. Marriage today involves 2 consenting adults from the opposite sex you ignorant atheist. So you're incorrect there. What aspect of your ignorant atheist brian can YOU not wrap around that the sam sex advocates are trying to CHANGE THE STATUS QUO? how ignorant are you? you continually hit straw men, which is typical as you have YET to refute my argument or answer any questions pertaining to it. Exactly what I would expect as you have nothing but your own ignorant personal opinions and feelings to refute it with, which hold no weight, or hold as much weight as the next guys personal opinions.

    ReplyDelete

  94. Theo'Dis:
    I'm sorry I asked you "if you read what you type".
    It's just that your "arguments" are so bizarrely worded, fallacious and full of childish insults that's it's hard not to insult you.
    I shouldn't have descended to your level. I'm sorry.

    Let's see, bizarrely worded? no, full of grammatical and spelling errors, yes. However, they are so insignificant that anyone with a half a brain can understand what I am reading.
    Fallcious, no, point out a fallacy you ignorant atheist.
    childish insults? no, insults that happen to be completely true? yes.
    Now you can either back up your ignorant assertions with actual evidence, or you can just continue to make yourself look ignorant. My guess is you choose the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Besides the "argumentum verbosium", false equivocation, ad hominem(1), special pleading, appeal to consequences (2), appeal to tradition(3), straw man(4), argumentum ad populum your posts contain no fallacies, Theo'Dis.



    1-"You are ignorant, you, froggie, pvblis, are all deeply ignorant, your posts and everything you say PROVES that." etc...
    2-People will "merry" animals!
    3-It's not "the status quo"!
    4-"The logic of gay marriage supporters is as follows" Here's your straw-man!

    ReplyDelete
  96. "your posts contain no fallacies," This part is sarcastic, in case you couldn't tell.

    ReplyDelete
  97. wow...um...I like to drink pickle juice...

    ReplyDelete


  98. 1-"You are ignorant, you, froggie, pvblis, are all deeply ignorant, your posts and everything you say PROVES that." etc...
    2-People will "merry" animals!
    3-It's not "the status quo"!
    4-"The logic of gay marriage supporters is as follows" Here's your straw-man!

    1. No argument verbasom, as what I am saying is completely logical and rational, and is no longer of voluminous than stans posts. False equivocation? what on earth are you even talking about? you have not provided a shred of evidence. An ad hominem is not an insult you ignorant atheist. An ad hominem is when you equate the validity of an argument with an insult. You're ignorant therefore your wrong, or you're wrong because you're ignorant.
    You're so illogical and irrational you can't even tell the difference between an insult and an ad hominem fallacy.

    2. People will "merry" animals, is a spelling error, but as I said anyone with half a brain can understand what I am talking about. Furthermore you've also displayed your ignorance of appealing to consequence, since I am not saying 'gay marriage will happen therefore bestiality will happen as well' I am saying the same logic can be applied to both so there is no logical reason why you shouldn't be fighting for both. So you have proved your ignorance of the ad hominem fallacy, the appeal to consequence fallacy, AND the verbosm fallacy. Typical ignorant atheist of course.

    3. yes it is the status quo, The country only recognizes gay marriage in like what 5 or 4 states? status quo = hetero sexual marriage you ignorant atheist. If it wasn't then why on earth are people fighting for 'equal rights?' obviously heterosexuals had this 'right' before gays did and homosexuals want the 'same right'.

    4. No argument ad populatum. Did I say 'a lot of people believe marriage is between a man and a women therefore that is the true definition? or therefore it is right?' no I didn't, I stated a fact you ignorant atheist, per the DOMA, it states that only marriage between a MAN AND A WOMEN is recognized by the federal government, once again just stating a fact. You really are ignorant of logical fallacies. It doesn't surprise me as you've shown yourself to be completely void of any logical coherent thought which is quite common among atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  99.      "Using the logic of pro gay marriage advocates, these people have the rights and denying their right to get married to their pets is a violation of equal rights."
         Only if you wish to assert that dogs and cats are (or should be) citizens. A cat is not capable of acting as executor of an estate. (One of the rights of married couples is that no further paperwork is required to assign the spouse as executor upon death of one member of the couple.)
         "Notice how ignorant stan did not refute anything I've said. He just insults, my insults are not only backed by evidence, I also refute what people say while making said insults."
         This is simply not true. TD's insults are not backed by evidence, are sometimes contrary to evidence, and sometimes stand as his sole comment. Furthermore, TD -- at his best -- refutes a straw-man version of what someone says. Go back through his posts. It will confirm what I have said.
         "I guess you missed the part where it says 'marriage is between a man and a women [of the same race].' You wanting to change the status quo to support one group is logically no different than other people wanting to change the status quo to support another group." [Words added as a comparison to an historical argument. There is no evidence that TD seeks to restore the ban on interracial marriage.]
         Here I want to note the use of the "playbook" of the opponents of interracial marriage. At the time, the law did read that marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race. That has since been changed. However, his argument still fails. All citizens are supposed to have equal rights. Dogs and cats are not and cannot be citizens, therefore marriage to pets cannot fall "under the umbrella."
         "Ignorance at its finest here. Marriage today involves 2 consenting adults from the opposite sex you ignorant atheist. So you're incorrect there. What aspect of your ignorant atheist brian can YOU not wrap around that the sam sex advocates are trying to CHANGE THE STATUS QUO?"
         This is true enough. Constitutional cases (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education) seek to change the status quo on the grounds that the status quo violates people's rights. In this case, it is an issue of equal protection. TD has said nothing to refute the claim that banning same-sex marriage is a violation of equal protection. He has attempted to use a lot of emotional scare tactics. Unfortunately, those work on a lot of people. But he has no case. Or, at least, he hasn't presented one.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Interracial marriage IS bestiality.

    and flute, don't mess with a monkey, they'll just throw their sh-t all over you!

    ReplyDelete
  101. All this talk of marriage to pets has me humming sex with ducks.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Theo Said: You're so illogical and irrational you can't even tell the difference between an insult and an ad hominem fallacy.

    heh.

    Marcus Wellington said: blah blah blah

    Crawl back into your hole, Marcus.

    ReplyDelete

  103. Only if you wish to assert that dogs and cats are (or should be) citizens. A cat is not capable of acting as executor of an estate. (One of the rights of married couples is that no further paperwork is required to assign the spouse as executor upon death of one member of the couple.)

    Another ignorant atheist speaks.

    1. People leave their stuff to the pets when they die all the time.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ehow.com%2Fhow_2122526_leave-money-pet-will.html&ei=3ZMwSsbuM6GNtgeyzejUBQ&usg=AFQjCNH28SCH9k0mbmnzVuS7JZ1i24LWDw&sig2=wVTARdWqY1dbTTGMI2BmhQ

    2. citizenship is irrelevant since people marry non US citizens all the time.

    You have no point.

    This is simply not true. TD's insults are not backed by evidence, are sometimes contrary to evidence, and sometimes stand as his sole comment. Furthermore, TD -- at his best -- refutes a straw-man version of what someone says. Go back through his posts. It will confirm what I have said.

    Hilarious, here is just one of my many insults that are backed by evidence, this was to flute:

    "An ad hominem is not an insult you ignorant atheist."

    Evidence?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable).

    thus flue is ignorant as to what an ad hominem is.


    Here I want to note the use of the "playbook" of the opponents of interracial marriage. At the time, the law did read that marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race. That has since been changed. However, his argument still fails. All citizens are supposed to have equal rights. Dogs and cats are not and cannot be citizens, therefore marriage to pets cannot fall "under the umbrella."

    more ignorance. Citizenship need not apply, since people get married to non citizens all the time. The logic 'no same sex marriage is a violation of rights' can easily be used to say 'no human animal marriage is a violation of rights,' based upon the humans right to get married to whom he wants as well. Saying he can't merry a cat because it isn't a citizen is like say he can't merry an African or a Mexican because they aren't citizens. The fact that one is human and ther other is not different than saying one is gay or one is heterosexual, who people want to merry is their business right? why is it ok to discriminate one way but not the other? equal rights for all!


    TD has said nothing to refute the claim that banning same-sex marriage is a violation of equal protection. He has attempted to use a lot of emotional scare tactics. Unfortunately, those work on a lot of people. But he has no case. Or, at least, he hasn't presented one.

    Oopsie, red herring, for you, as that topic was about the same logic supporters of gay marriage use can be used to support animal human marriage as well. Noone has even brought up EPC to me so how can I say anything to refute it? looks like you were caught in another one of your deceitful tactics you typical ignorant atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  104. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Theo Said: You're so illogical and irrational you can't even tell the difference between an insult and an ad hominem fallacy.

    heh.

    Marcus Wellington said: blah blah blah

    Crawl back into your hole, Marcus.


    Thought so you ignorant atheist, your ignorance of fallacies and logic has been exposed. It is hilarious when ignorant atheists such as yourself try things like that, you think you've got some sort of point and only to have it thrown in your face. I would be a whole lot nicer to people if they didn't try to gang up on Dan and stop acting like they knew everything. The opinions of the atheists around here are down right ignorant and its time someone exposed that. stan, froggie, flute, pvblis, ac chimp, all of you are utterly ignorant in logic, while stan, flute, pvblis, and ac chimp are also ignorant in history. The evidence keeps piling up, you guys make so many ignorant ridiculous statements it's hilarious, and I enjoy calling you out on them and exposing them for all to see, I also enjoy seeing your complete lack of rational coherent responses as well.

    I'd also like to see the rest of the ignorant atheists follow suit with stan and start fighting for incest marriage rights as well

    ReplyDelete
  106. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Furthermore, TD -- at his best -- refutes a straw-man version of what someone says. Go back through his posts. It will confirm what I have said.

    Just seen this, there is no straw man, as my position has always been that gay rights advocates are trying to change the status quo, and that same logic can be applied to incest marriage (which stan already conceded) and animal to human marriage as well, thus there is no logical reason that they shouldn't be fighting for incest marriage and animal to human marriage as well, they have nothing other than their personal opinions as to why animal to human marriage advocates can't do exactly what gay marriage advocates are doing.
    Instead of dealing with my argument in a logical, rational way, they just label it a strawman, and they wonder why I call them ignorant atheists?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Okay, Theo, here's your chance. Make an argument about the post containing no logical fallacies.
    Give it a try!

    ReplyDelete
  109.      "Another ignorant atheist speaks." [Directed at my words.]
         This, of course, is meant as an insult. And it is decidedly a lie. I am not an atheist as I am uncommitted on whether there exists a god or not. It is decidedly a lie because I have already corrected TD on the matter. He knows I am not an atheist -- ignorant or otherwise.
         "People leave their stuff to the pets when they die all the time."
         They do. But surviving people have to act as executors or caretakers. The pets are not cognizant of the situation.
         "citizenship is irrelevant since people marry non US citizens all the time."
         But the ability to become a citizen is quite relevant. But perhaps he would prefer "recognized as a person under the law." Or perhaps he doesn't care as he only wishes to argue against a straw man that he says is my position.
         "Hilarious, here is just one of my many insults that are backed by evidence, this was to flute:
         'An ad hominem is not an insult you ignorant atheist.'" [Emphasis added]
         I have highlighted the insult. Now, generally, an ad hominem is also an insult. But they do refer to separate things. TD has failed to give evidence supporting his insult. Flute's example of ad hominem was, in fact, both an ad hominem and an insult. It was an ad hominem because "you are ignorant, you, froggie, pvblis, are all deeply ignorant, your posts and everything you say PROVES that" is used by TD in place of an argument. So there is no evidence of Flute's ignorance or of his atheism. He has not (as far as I am aware) declared whether or not he is an atheist. TD demonstrably does not care about this as I have declared that I am not. Yet he still uses the same claim against me.
         "Citizenship need not apply, since people get married to non citizens all the time."
         But ability (at least in principle) to become a citizen does apply. The rights and privileges associated with marriage will not not be recognized (for example) in regards to someone not permitted to enter the country. They can call themselves married. But they will not be able to exercise the rights.
         "Why is it ok to discriminate one way but not the other? equal rights for all!"
         Rights are not currently extended to cats. There are some rights extended to foreign nationals as they are still "persons under the law." But no rights are extended to cats. A foreign national can use our court system. A cat cannot. This is an effort by TD to misrepresent my position. That makes it a straw man.
         "Just seen this, there is no straw man, as my position has always been that..."
         My accusation that TD uses straw men stands. He is using a straw man when he misrepresents someone else's position. His diatribe here would be to defend against an accusation of "moving goalposts" -- something he has done on other topics, but of which he is not accused here.
         "They have nothing other than their personal opinions as to why animal to human marriage advocates can't do exactly what gay marriage advocates are doing."
         This is not true. Animals are not recognized as having rights under the law. You can't have a cat-human marriage for the same reason you can't have a cat-cat marriage. Cats do not have rights. Now, if cats could enter into legal marriages with each other, then the logic would apply.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Just for the record, ad hominem can be different from argumentum ad hominem.
    Ad hominen is an insult, argumentum ad hominem is informal logical fallacy.

    If you remember your Latin classes - ad hominem is latin for "against the man".

    ReplyDelete
  111. Jill:

         A quick correction: Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man." "Against the man" would be contra hominem. At any rate, I find that Latin phrases used within English sometimes depart from a straight translation. It is my experience that ad hominem is used to describe the fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  112. you haven't answered my question.
    why do you christians try so actively to turn gay people into straight when they are not trying to turn you gay.
    why do you try to impose your morality to others?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Now that I think of it, I did badly in Latin...

    ReplyDelete
  114. STD, When I pointed out that animals are not and cannot be a consenting adult in a marriage, you replied,"I guess you missed the part where it says 'marriage is between a man and a women.'"

    You seem to have issue with not only understanding what we say, but also remembering your own failed arguments. You previously had siad,"The same sex argument also works for people wanting to marry their own siblings or offspring, it even works for pepole that want to marry animals!"

    So again, since animals cannot fulfill the legal requirements of a marriage, your argument fails. That is unless you want to go back to the biblical definition of marriage where the woman is like property, used in business transactions between families and the woman have no say in the matter. In that case, an animal might fit the bill.

    STD, though I disagree with just about every point you make, your Bizarro logic is always entertaining.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Michael

    ReplyDelete

  115. They do. But surviving people have to act as executors or caretakers. The pets are not cognizant of the situation.

    No they don't. Did you not read the link?

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/42670



    But the ability to become a citizen is quite relevant. But perhaps he would prefer "recognized as a person under the law." Or perhaps he doesn't care as he only wishes to argue against a straw man that he says is my position.

    No, it is not, since one does not need to be a citizen to get married, where in the law does it state that one must be able to BECOME a citizen? there are plenty of people that get married to americans but do not want to become american citizens. Once again, what is stopping the bestiality advocates from changing that law to accommodate their needs? no straw man, it is certainly your position to change the status quo to suit the needs of gay marriage advocates? so please tell me why bestiality advocates can't do the same?

    I have highlighted the insult. Now, generally, an ad hominem is also an insult. But they do refer to separate things.

    Whoopsie, the insult being 'in place of an argument' does not constitute an ad hominem. Once again, an ad hominem is as follows:

    "you're wrong because you're ignorant'

    It is equating the validity of an argument with an insult or a quality about the person. So you are also ignorant of the ad hominem fallacy. Furthermore that statement you quoted was a fact, as their posts DO prove that, flutes posts prove his ignorance, his latest post called the same thing you quoted an ad hominem, but I am in no way equating the validity of anyones assertion with an insult or personal quality.

    But ability (at least in principle) to become a citizen does apply. The rights and privileges associated with marriage will not not be recognized (for example) in regards to someone not permitted to enter the country. They can call themselves married. But they will not be able to exercise the rights.

    No, the ability does not need to apply, please show me that in the law or constitution that there must be an ability to become a citizen, then(assuming you can) please show me why bestality advocates can't lobby to change that like same sex marriage advocates lobby to change the status quo?

    Rights are not currently extended to cats. There are some rights extended to foreign nationals as they are still "persons under the law." But no rights are extended to cats.

    Whoopsie, not talking about the cat, talking about the adult that wants to marry the cat, their rights are being violated. Rights are extended to cats, they're called animal rights, the fact that they can't use our court system is irrelevant, they can easily be represented by their spouse or in the event of their spouses death, be represented in the same exact way when people leave their money to pets. No straw man, since cats being able to use court systems is irrelevant, handicapped people cannot use the court system either, they're represented by other people.

    My accusation that TD uses straw men stands. He is using a straw man when he misrepresents someone else's position.

    No straw man, just your ignorance of the term. Are you lobbying to change the status quo to suit the needs of gay marriage advocates? yes you are, thus why can't bestality marriage advocates do the same? every argument I've made is based on that, and it is also a question that you and stan continually dodge. You say they can't do the same because of X, well why can't bestality advocates lobby to change it like same sex marriage advocates lobby to change the law/constitution/status quo?

    This is not true. Animals are not recognized as having rights under the law.

    Wrong, animal rights are recognized under the law, as well...animal rights!. The human that wants to merry the cat has rights, the cat does not need any rights to get married just the human, please tell me why they can't try to change things to suit their needs the same way you're doing it?

    ReplyDelete
  116. No they don't. Did you not read the link?

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/42670


    It would appear you certainly didn't

    From the link:

    That makes for some pretty rich pets. How do they manage their money? 

    Since they're considered property, you can't leave money to an animal. What you can do is put money into a special trust to fund the care of your pet.

    How does a pet trust work? 

    They're not that different from a trust that you might set up for a child. Every trust has a trustee or co-trustees who are legally responsible to guard the assets you leave behind. With a pet trust, I usually recommend that an owner name one person as a trustee and another as caretaker, so that each party can keep an eye on the other.


    So basically the animal is property, has no legal recourse of it's own and requires a trustee capable of assuming legal responsibility.

    ReplyDelete

  117. So again, since animals cannot fulfill the legal requirements of a marriage, your argument fails. That is unless you want to go back to the biblical definition of marriage where the woman is like property, used in business transactions between families and the woman have no say in the matter. In that case, an animal might fit the bill.

    STD, though I disagree with just about every point you make, your Bizarro logic is always entertaining.

    Typical, exactly what I've come to expect from such an ignorant atheist. You obviously have difficulties understanding what I say, I'll break it down in ignorant atheist terms.

    1. You are trying to change the status quo to suit the needs of same sex marriage advocates.

    2. Bestiality advocates can change the law to suit their needs just like same sex advocates.

    3. So please give me a logical reason why they cannot?

    4. If you say animals cannot fulfill the legal requirements of a marriage then the same sex argument fails as well since same sex couples cannot fulfill the legal requirements of marriage EITHER, per the DOMA.

    5. If you say 'animals aren't people' then the same sex marriage argument fails too because same sex couples are not heterosexual male and female couples. The bestiality advocates don't qualify in your eyes, just like same sex marriage advocates don't in the current law.

    6. Any law that you put forth as some sort of argument that bestiality advocates can't get married is irrelevant since those laws can be changed just like same sex advocates are trying to change these laws.

    7. you guys have nothing to refute this but your personal opinions and feelings.

    ReplyDelete


  118. So basically the animal is property, has no legal recourse of it's own and requires a trustee capable of assuming legal responsibility.

    You miss the point, the ignorant person tried to say that pepole can't marry pets because they can't receive money if the spouse dies, the point is that money and other things can be left to the pet. Whether they're property or not is irrelevant as the spouse can still leave the money behind to their spouse pet the same way it is described in the link.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Once again, what is stopping the bestiality advocates from changing that law to accommodate their needs?

    From http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/marriage_license_laws_requirements/all_states.shtml

    2. Capacity to consent

    Marriage requires two consenting people.  If either person cannot or does not understand what it means to be married (due to mental illness, drugs, alcohol, or other factors affecting judgment), then that person does not have the capacity to consent and the marriage is not valid.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I did not miss the point - your initial response to Pvblivs was as follows

    Pvblivs: They do. But surviving people have to act as executors or caretakers. The pets are not cognizant of the situation.

    TD: No they don't. Did you not read the link?

    From your answer the inference is that people are not required to act as caretakers. That is in direct contradiction to the link which clearly states that you need to set up a trust with a person capable of assuming legal responsibility to administer the trust.

    ReplyDelete

  121. From http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/marriage_license_laws_requirements/all_states.shtml

    2. Capacity to consent

    Marriage requires two consenting people. If either person cannot or does not understand what it means to be married (due to mental illness, drugs, alcohol, or other factors affecting judgment), then that person does not have the capacity to consent and the marriage is not valid.

    Way to miss the point there freddie. Bestiality advocates can change the law from '2 consenting people' to '2 constenting people or 1 person and an animal' just like same sex advocates can change the law from 'no same sex marriages are recognized' to 'same sex marriages are recognized.' or 'only marriages between a man and a women are recognized' to 'same sex marriages are also recognized' Now other than your personal opinion, why can't bestiality advocates do the same thing same sex advocates do?

    ReplyDelete

  122. From your answer the inference is that people are not required to act as caretakers. That is in direct contradiction to the link which clearly states that you need to set up a trust with a person capable of assuming legal responsibility to administer the trust.

    You did miss the point, people can leave stuff to their pets if they die, that was the point. I never inferred that people are not required to act as caretakers, the stuff can get left to the pet and a relative or lawyer can act as a care taker, which is no different than what happens when money and things are left to a mentally handicapped person.

    ReplyDelete
  123.      "You miss the point, the ignorant person tried to say that pepole can't marry pets because they can't receive money if the spouse dies."
         No, the ignorant person (that would be TD) said that the argument to allow same-sex marriage would also work to allow marriage to pets. Now, let's look at my actual quote as he is trying to say I said something different.
         "A cat is not capable of acting as executor of an estate."
         Please note that I said executor, rather than beneficiary. An executor handles the funds on behalf of an estate, but does not necessarily have any financial claim to the estate.
         "You are trying to change the status quo to suit the needs of same sex marriage advocates."
         Actually, that's only half-right. AC is trying to change the status quo. But it is to serve the general principle of equal protection under the law.
         "Bestiality advocates can change the law to suit their needs just like same sex advocates."
         Perhaps, but not by using any of the arguments here. A cat cannot marry at all. If a cat were allowed to marry another cat, but not a human, then the arguments would apply.
         "So please give me a logical reason why they cannot?"
         I must restrict myself to giving logical reasons to those who will listen. Attempting to give a logic argument to TD seems to have the same effect as trying to give strained carrots to a 2-year-old.
         "If you say animals cannot fulfill the legal requirements of a marriage then the same sex argument fails as well since same sex couples cannot fulfill the legal requirements of marriage EITHER, per the DOMA."
         He's not really helping his case. Dogs, cats, and other non-human animals are unable to exercise the rights and responsibilities of marriage on general principles -- not based on some law specificly directed against them. The only thing to which TD can point to say that same-sex couples cannot meet the requirements of marriage is a law specificly written against them.
         "If you say 'animals aren't people' then the same sex marriage argument fails too because same sex couples are not heterosexual male and female couples. The bestiality advocates don't qualify in your eyes, just like same sex marriage advocates don't in the current law."
         Again, the same idea applies here. If cats ever start protesting and demanding the rights of citizens (that would be the cats themselves, not people acting on their behalf) I will take notice.
         "Any law that you put forth as some sort of argument that bestiality advocates can't get married is irrelevant since those laws can be changed just like same sex advocates are trying to change these laws."
         Ah, but I did not put forward a law. I put forward a fact. Dogs and cats are oblivious to the very concept of marriage. And a marriage is a mutual agreement.
         "You guys have nothing to refute this but your personal opinions and feelings."
         If TD actually listened, he would realize that that was false.

    ReplyDelete
  124. What a fucking jackass.

    Ahem.

    1. STD bitched that bringing up polygamy was changing the subject, yet polygamy was introduced as a past aspect of marriage. STD has been harping on incestuous marriage as well as bestial marriage -- both of which constitute the exact same "change of subject" about which he had bitched, with the only difference being temporal.

    I await your admission of fault.

    2. Marriage [today] is generally held as being between a pair of consenting adults [of opposite gender]. Unless STD advocates removing the consent clause, bestial marriage would not be suddenly available if same-sex marriage were recognized.

    I await your admission of fault.

    3. When the consent clause has been raised, STD attempts to obfuscate by citing same-sex marriage as a change to the status quo. This tact is anathema to his cause, however, since the current standard of marriage represents a whole series of changes to the status quo. If STD fears that bestial marriage may result from further changes in the status quo, then same-sex marriage is irrelevant -- bestial marriage may result from the veritable plethora of changes to the status quo which have occurred to this point.

    I await your admission of fault.

    4. Raising the issue of restrictions against child-bearing, child-rearing, or adoption is not a red herring. Rather, restrictions of this sort would be logically necessary if one were to allow same-sex or incestuous marriage, but one also wished to restrict access to children to these couples. Especially in the case of incestuous marriage -- which no one is advocating -- these restrictions could lead to a revision of the law to allow same-sex marriage while forbidding incestuous marriage.

    I await your admission of fault.

    5. Animals cannot be executors of an estate, despite STD's inanity, for the same reasons that they cannot consent to marry. As with previous statements of his, however, when called on it, he insults his opponent, even suggesting the opposition hasn't read the link -- the reading of which makes clear the fact that STD has either not read, or not comprehended, the very link in question.

    I await your admission of fault.

    6. When Pvblivs pointed out that people must act as executors or caretakers, STD responded with, "No they don't. Did you not read the link?" Later, STD claimed that, "I never inferred that people are not required to act as caretakers..." This is a direct contradiction, and a lie on his part.

    I await your admission of fault.

    7. Finally, with respect to Abram/Abraham and his marriage to Sarai/Sarah, I cited verses identifying Sarah as Abraham's half-sister, to which you twice claimed I was wrong (with superfluous insults). I am not wrong, as Abraham himself, following the second episode of sister fiction, tells Abimelech that "she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife."

    I await your admission of fault, and your apology for insisting the fault was mine.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  125. You're unlikely to get an apology from TD:
    Dunning-Kruger effect

    ReplyDelete

  126. 1. STD bitched that bringing up polygamy was changing the subject, yet polygamy was introduced as a past aspect of marriage. STD has been harping on incestuous marriage as well as bestial marriage -- both of which constitute the exact same "change of subject" about which he had bitched, with the only difference being temporal.

    What on earth are you talking about here? is polygamy legal now? no it is not, and has never been legal here in the U.S. You have no point.

    2. Marriage [today] is generally held as being between a pair of consenting adults [of opposite gender]. Unless STD advocates removing the consent clause, bestial marriage would not be suddenly available if same-sex marriage were recognized.

    No need to remove the consent clause. It can easily be changed to say 'between 2 consenting adults or 1 adult and an animal'
    what do you have to refute this? you've done nothing but avoid that point and question.


    3. When the consent clause has been raised, STD attempts to obfuscate by citing same-sex marriage as a change to the status quo. This tact is anathema to his cause, however, since the current standard of marriage represents a whole series of changes to the status quo. If STD fears that bestial marriage may result from further changes in the status quo, then same-sex marriage is irrelevant -- bestial marriage may result from the veritable plethora of changes to the status quo which have occurred to this point.

    More ignorance. Marriage has always been between a man and a women, so there have been no changes there, there have been changes made based upon race, but race does not = sexual orientation. Stan hits a straw man, as I never said I feared anything, I said the same logic to promote same sex marriage can be used to promote bestial marriage as well, there is no reason they shouldn't be promoting bestial marriage as well. Stan has done nothing but ignore that.

    4. Raising the issue of restrictions against child-bearing, child-rearing, or adoption is not a red herring. Rather, restrictions of this sort would be logically necessary if one were to allow same-sex or incestuous marriage, but one also wished to restrict access to children to these couples. Especially in the case of incestuous marriage -- which no one is advocating -- these restrictions could lead to a revision of the law to allow same-sex marriage while forbidding incestuous marriage.

    Child raising does not = marriage, the topic is gay marriage not gay child raising. Gays can already adopt, stan has no point here, incest relationships (sex not marriage you ignorant atheist) happen outside of marriage as well, so there is no point here, just stan trying to justify his red herring.

    ReplyDelete

  127. 5. Animals cannot be executors of an estate, despite STD's inanity, for the same reasons that they cannot consent to marry. As with previous statements of his, however, when called on it, he insults his opponent, even suggesting the opposition hasn't read the link -- the reading of which makes clear the fact that STD has either not read, or not comprehended, the very link in question.

    more ignorance here. Executors of an estate is irrelevant, I have already been over this, people can leave stuff to their pets if they die, that was the point. I never inferred that people are not required to act as caretakers, the stuff can get left to the pet and a relative or lawyer can act as a care taker, which is no different than what happens when money and things are left to a mentally handicapped person.

    6. When Pvblivs pointed out that people must act as executors or caretakers, STD responded with, "No they don't. Did you not read the link?" Later, STD claimed that, "I never inferred that people are not required to act as caretakers..." This is a direct contradiction, and a lie on his part.

    See above, now the ignorant atheists just ignore my responses.


    "she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife."

    Ignorance, Abraham said that so he wouldn't get killed. I quoted this to you already, you just ignored it, I also said that Sarah was not Abrahams biological half sister, it was it was customary for the daughter-in-law to be officially adopted as a full daughter in case her husband is to die while she is traveling with his family. So you ignored that as well.

    Congrats, you've made yourself look even more ignorant.

    ReplyDelete

  128. No, the ignorant person (that would be TD) said that the argument to allow same-sex marriage would also work to allow marriage to pets. Now, let's look at my actual quote as he is trying to say I said something different.

    What part of the following do you not understand? "the stuff can get left to the pet and a relative or lawyer can act as a care taker, which is no different than what happens when money and things are left to a mentally handicapped person."

    Perhaps, but not by using any of the arguments here. A cat cannot marry at all. If a cat were allowed to marry another cat, but not a human, then the arguments would apply.

    Ignorance, are same sex marriages trying to change the status quo? yes they are, so why can't bestiality advocates do the same? you trying to change laws to suit your own needs is no different than them trying to change laws to suit their own needs as well, so with something other than your personal opinion tell me why they can't do this and why you aren't fighting for their rights as well?

    He's not really helping his case. Dogs, cats, and other non-human animals are unable to exercise the rights and responsibilities of marriage on general principles -- not based on some law specificly directed against them. The only thing to which TD can point to say that same-sex couples cannot meet the requirements of marriage is a law specificly written against them.

    irrelevant, the fact that it is written specifically against them is irrelevant, it is still agaisnt the law for both parties. Both are trying to change the laws to suit their needs, so why can bestiality advocates do the same? what reason other than your own personal opinion and feelings do you have for not fighting for their rights as well?

    Again, the same idea applies here. If cats ever start protesting and demanding the rights of citizens (that would be the cats themselves, not people acting on their behalf) I will take notice.

    no need, since all you would need is 1 adult. Why can't they change the law to say '2 consenting adults or 1 adult and an animal?'

    Ah, but I did not put forward a law. I put forward a fact. Dogs and cats are oblivious to the very concept of marriage. And a marriage is a mutual agreement.

    You = gay marriage advocates, stop being ignorant. It is also a fact gays can't get married too. Dogs and cats don't need to have a concept of marriage nor does it need to be a mutual argreement between them. There is no mutual argreement to have sex with an animal outside of marriage, there is no mutual agreement to buy the pet in teh first place, so you have no point. The fact they are oblivious means nothing since the law can easily read '2 consenting adults and 1 adult and an animal.'

    ReplyDelete
  129. (crazy voice) It can easily be changed to say 'between 2 consenting adults or 1 human and Theo Dis.' Thus forcing TD to marry people he doesn't want to!
    Or it could be changed to TD and one space monster!
    what do you have to refute this? you've done nothing but avoid that point and question.
    Just what I'd expect from ignorant TD. (/crazy voice)

    ReplyDelete
  130. Jill said "Dunning-Kruger effect"
    Absolutely!

    ReplyDelete
  131. Oh ya stan, here is more proof of your ignorance.

    But indeed [she is] truly my sister. She [is] the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.


    The word for daughter is 'bath' an acceptable translation for the word is 'adopted daughter' or 'daughter in law'

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1323&t=NKJV

    1) daughter

    a) daughter, girl, adopted daughter, daughter-in-law, sister, granddaughters, female child, cousin

    So there was no incest at all, and in your own words.

    I await your admission of fault, and your apology for insisting the fault was mine.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Abraham states that Sarah, his wife, is really his sister, leading Abimelech to take Sarah as a wife. However, God visits Abimelech in a dream and tells him the truth, acknowledging that Abimelech made the mistake innocently, but ordering Abimelech to restore Sarah to Abraham. Abimelech complains to Abraham, who states that he didn't exactly lie, since Sarah is his half-sister.

    ReplyDelete
  133. u.gm amne achth.i bth ab.i. eua ak la bth am.i u.thei. l.i l.ashe

    And - she's the daughter of my father - but not of the woman who bore me - she become my wife.

    ReplyDelete
  134. What on earth are you talking about here? is polygamy legal now? no it is not, and has never been legal here in the U.S. You have no point. 

    STD moves the goalposts. His previous statement claimed that "Marriage states that marriage is between a man and a women [sic]." No mention of marriage in the U.S., and American marriage is nowhere implied as being the version STD advocates.

    Furthermore, if aspects of marriage which have "never been legal here in the U.S." are out of bounds, then so, too, are incestuous and/or bestial marriages.

    FAIL.

    No need to remove the consent clause. It can easily be changed to say 'between 2 consenting adults or 1 adult and an animal' 

    ...which removes the consent clause for one of the parties in question, unless STD wishes to claim that animals can give legal consent to marry.

    FAIL.

    [T]here have been changes made [to the marriage] based upon race, but race does not = sexual orientation. 

    First, STD's faux pas regarding "sexual orientation" is irrelevant and false -- sexual orientation has nothing to do with marriage, nor has it ever.

    Second, even if we consider that STD may have meant gender rather than orientation, he has nonetheless moved the goalposts again. Initially, he "argued" that any change in status quo would provide an avenue for bestial marriage to make a case, but now he's claiming that only changes to the status quo which involve gender are sufficient to provide bestial marriage a foothold.

    So he isn't comparing race with gender, but species with gender. In any event, his "argument" is as pathetic as its presentation.

    FAIL.

    Child raising does not = marriage, the topic is gay marriage not gay child raising. 

    Fine. That one was weak, I admit. Granted, if aspects related to same-sex marriage (such as child-raising, child-bearing, or adoption) are red herrings, then so are incestuous marriage and bestial marriage, which you have introduced.

    NO NET CHANGE IN PASS/FAIL.

    [T]he [estate] can get left to the pet and a relative or lawyer can act as a care taker, which is no different than what happens when money and things are left to a mentally handicapped person. 

    ...which is self-defeating, since you are attempting to refute the fact that while animals (or retarded persons; strange comparison there) can be left contents of an estate, they cannot be executors. The difference may seem trivial to one so pedestrian as yourself, but it is quite significant, legally. You have done nothing here but strengthen the point you seek to refute.

    FAIL.

    I never inferred that people are not required to act as caretakers... 

    No, you stated it explicitly. Let's see if I can jog your memory:

    Pvblivs: [S]urviving people have to act as executors or caretakers. 

    STD: No they don't. 

    So while you didn't infer that "people are not required to act as caretakers," you did say it directly.

    EPIC FAIL.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  135. But indeed [she is] truly my sister. She [is] the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. 


    The word for daughter is 'bath' an acceptable translation for the word is 'adopted daughter' or 'daughter in law'
     

    Let me get this straight.

    Are you seriously, with a straight face, trying to argue that when Abraham uses the term sister to describe Sarah to Abimelech, after the ruse has been exposed, and in the same sentence as when he also describes her as "the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother," that somehow all of the possible meanings here conspire against the obvious?!

    Get the fuck out.

    You are a complete fucking moron, and I guarantee the best part of you ended up as a wet spot on the sheet, or dribbled down your mother's ass-crack, or was perhaps even swallowed. You have got to be the dumbest, most retarded, dim-witted, worthless pile of shit of a giant douche that I have ever jousted with online.

    Seriously, congratulations on winning that prize, no doubt the only prize you could ever hope to win.

    If you need six feet of rope for any reason, look me up. I'll happily weave some for you. I also have a few extra box-cutters, if you need them...

    Fucktard.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  136. Here's a couple more for you, STD:

    Genesis 20:12 (for reference)

    Deuteronomy 27:22 

    Leviticus 20:17 

    Note that in all three cases the Hebrew words for sister and daughter are the same. Now, to be perfectly clear to the fuckwit STD, I am not arguing that the later verses apply to Abraham's situation, but I am showing that whatever eisegetical meaning STD might try to pass off for the Genesis 20:12 passage, he must apply it also to the later passages -- that is, if he claims the Leviticus or Deuteronomy passages discuss incest, then he must admit that so, too, does Genesis 20:12.

    So whenever you want to finally admit a factual error, I'm waiting.

    In the meantime, I think I now realize why you're so fucked in the head: your mother knows you are the result of a conjugal visit, but she still isn't sure who the father is.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete

  137. STD moves the goalposts. His previous statement claimed that "Marriage states that marriage is between a man and a women [sic]." No mention of marriage in the U.S., and American marriage is nowhere implied as being the version STD advocates.

    Hilarious, Ignorant stan is playing dumb(dumber than usual) this has anlways been about gay marriage in the U.S. hence the quoting of laws, states, etc. etc.

    Furthermore, if aspects of marriage which have "never been legal here in the U.S." are out of bounds, then so, too, are incestuous and/or bestial marriages.

    Wrong, I asked simple question, why can't incestuous and bestial marriages do what same sex marriages are doing? polygamists can be thrown in there as well(as can other people) but I just wanted to keep discussion to a minimum of topics.


    ..which removes the consent clause for one of the parties in question, unless STD wishes to claim that animals can give legal consent to marry.

    no need for consent on the animals part, just like there is no need for consent of the animal to have sex with it or keep it as a pet, you have no point here.


    First, STD's faux pas regarding "sexual orientation" is irrelevant and false -- sexual orientation has nothing to do with marriage, nor has it ever.

    Hilarious, stan ridiculous assertin is proven wrong by DOMA.


    Second, even if we consider that STD may have meant gender rather than orientation, he has nonetheless moved the goalposts again. Initially, he "argued" that any change in status quo would provide an avenue for bestial marriage to make a case, but now he's claiming that only changes to the status quo which involve gender are sufficient to provide bestial marriage a foothold.

    stan builds his straw man again. I never said it would lead or provide an avenue for bestial marriage to make a case, I said the same logic can be applied to bestial marriages and there is no reason you have other than your own personal opinions as to why you shouldn't be fighting for their equal 'rights' as well.


    So he isn't comparing race with gender, but species with gender. In any event, his "argument" is as pathetic as its presentation.

    Another straw man, I was comparing race with gender in a response to your 'there were changes that led up to the status quo' assertion.


    .which is self-defeating, since you are attempting to refute the fact that while animals (or retarded persons; strange comparison there) can be left contents of an estate, they cannot be executors. The difference may seem trivial to one so pedestrian as yourself, but it is quite significant, legally. You have done nothing here but strengthen the point you seek to refute.

    The fact they cannot be executors does not change the fact that money can and other things can be left to them. Mentally handicapped people cannot be executors, but they still have things left for them when the spouse dies. So you have no point.


    So while you didn't infer that "people are not required to act as caretakers," you did say it directly.

    You like the other ignorant atheist completely ignore the rest of my comments where I talk about lawyers

    the only failure here is you.

    ReplyDelete
  138. this has anlways (sic) been about gay marriage in the U.S.

    No, it hasn't, the title of the post is "Homosexuality in the Bible"

    no need for consent on the animals part, just like there is no need for consent of the animal to have sex with it or keep it as a pet,

    WHAT THE?

    ReplyDelete

  139. Are you seriously, with a straight face, trying to argue that when Abraham uses the term sister to describe Sarah to Abimelech, after the ruse has been exposed, and in the same sentence as when he also describes her as "the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother," that somehow all of the possible meanings here conspire against the obvious?!

    Your appeals to ridicule and attempts to make my pointing out the valid interpretation of scripture seem stupid mean nothing. It does not change the fact that sarah was adopted and there was no incest. You have no point, now in your own words you ignorant atheist.

    I await your admission of fault, and your apology for insisting the fault was mine.

    ReplyDelete
  140. stan builds his straw man again. I never said it would lead or provide an avenue for bestial marriage to make a case, I said the same logic can be applied to bestial marriages and there is no reason you have other than your own personal opinions as to why you shouldn't be fighting for their equal 'rights' as well.

    Are you saying that Stan's logic is unsound because (according to you) that logic could also be applied to supporting bestial marriages?

    Then if Stan were arguing 100 years ago that interracial marriages should be legalized (on the basis of equal rights), would you oppose Stan because his logic could also be applied to bestial marriages?

    ReplyDelete
  141. The difference between normal thinking people and TD is that normal thinking people can admit when they are wrong and learn from it.
    Abraham marries his father's daughter. The Bible doesn't say that was the wrong or right thing to do.
    Lot has sex with his daughters... The Bible doesn't say that was the wrong or right thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  142. And one of the sad things is; if TD ever does have a point about anything, who would believe him after all his nonsense?

    ReplyDelete

  143. Note that in all three cases the Hebrew words for sister and daughter are the same. Now, to be perfectly clear to the fuckwit STD, I am not arguing that the later verses apply to Abraham's situation, but I am showing that whatever eisegetical meaning STD might try to pass off for the Genesis 20:12 passage, he must apply it also to the later passages -- that is, if he claims the Leviticus or Deuteronomy passages discuss incest, then he must admit that so, too, does Genesis 20:12.

    Wrong, I don't need to do any of that. The hebrew language is not the english language you ignorant atheist, so the same word could be used differently each time it is used.

    Furthermore you have no point, leviticus and deuteronomy could be talking about both adoptive and biological, while genesis could be just talking about adoptive. You're so ignorant you think that every time the word is used it must be used in the same way all the time, you couldn't be more ignorant. One only needs to look here

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1254&t=KJV

    the word 'bara' is used to mean different things, it is the same word but it means different things, same thing goes with the word sister.

    Leviticus and Deuteronomy could easily be talking about both biological and adoptive or just biological, in both ways I mentioned it is condemning incest and in one way it is going above and beyond and also condemning sexual relations with adopted children as well.

    Genesis is quite clearly talking a about adoption since it is consistent with the law back then that states it was customary for the daughter-in-law to be officially adopted as a full daughter in case her husband is to die while she is traveling with his family.

    So you have NO POINT, your ignorance has been exposed.

    I await your admission of fault, and your apology for insisting the fault was mine.

    ReplyDelete

  144. Are you saying that Stan's logic is unsound because (according to you) that logic could also be applied to supporting bestial marriages?

    Nope, you're confusing unsound logic with not logically consistent. I am saying he is being logically inconsistent. He has nothing other than his own personal opinion as to why he shouldn't be fighting for the 'rights' of bestial marriages.


    Then if Stan were arguing 100 years ago that interracial marriages should be legalized (on the basis of equal rights), would you oppose Stan because his logic could also be applied to bestial marriages?

    Where on earth am i opposing stan? I am asking him to be logically consistent

    ReplyDelete

  145. The difference between normal thinking people and TD is that normal thinking people can admit when they are wrong and learn from it.
    Abraham marries his father's daughter. The Bible doesn't say that was the wrong or right thing to do.
    Lot has sex with his daughters... The Bible doesn't say that was the wrong or right thing to do.

    I've admitted to being wrong plenty of times, not on this site because no one has shown, proved, or provided the slightest evidence that I am wrong. You 'thinking'(if that's what you ignorant atheists these days call it) I am wrong is not the same as me being wrong. You and the rest of the ignorant atheist squad cannot find a point where I am wrong at, the only thing you can find are spelling errors and grammatical errors,'attitude' problems and other insignificant errors.

    Abraham married his fathers adopted daughter, Lot and other the other are a different story which was already hashed out. Now what do you have to refute this you ignorant atheist?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Nope, you're confusing unsound logic with not logically consistent. I am saying he is being logically inconsistent. He has nothing other than his own personal opinion as to why he shouldn't be fighting for the 'rights' of bestial marriages.

    So it is your position that in order to be logically consistent, a person who supports the rights of interracial couples to get married would also have to support the right of a person to marry a dog?

    Are you against interracial marriage, bestial marriage or are you logically inconsistent?

    ReplyDelete
  147. How deep will you dig before you admit an error?

    [T]he word 'bara' is used to mean different things, it is the same word but it means different things, same thing goes with the word sister. 

    Ahh, so because the word translated as "to create" has multiple meanings, this must apply to the word translated as "sister," or the word translated as "daughter"?

    Think for a moment, if you can, as to the repercussions of this "logic" you seek to employ.

    Recall the exact text of Genesis 20:12:

    [S]he is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. 

    If "sister" here has the meaning of "beloved" as listed in the possible translations of H269, then the whole story loses its meaning, for the ruse pivots on Sarai pretending not to be Abram's wife. Thus, the only translation for H269 in the context of that story is as a sister, a half-sister, or a relative.

    Of course, I recognize that you are unlikely to accept this logic (much less recognize it as such), so I have more evidence to offer, with equally simple explanation.

    If "daughter" is translated as "daughter-in-law," or "adopted daughter," as you suggest, then why is Sarai the "adopted daughter" of Abram's father, but not the "adopted daughter" of his mother? Have you some explanation for that, or do you have the audacity to suggest that the meaning of H1323 is different in the two uses in this sentence?

    Just for fun, let's try it with STD's alternative translations:

    [S]he is my relative; she is the granddaughter of my father, but not the cousin of my mother; and she became my bitch. 

    [S]he is my bride; she is the daughter-in-law of my father, but not the sister of my mother; and she became my wife. 

    [S]he is my half-sister; she is the cousin of my father, but not the grand-daughter of my mother; and she became my woman. 

    [S]he is my bride; she is the adopted daughter of my father, but not the adopted daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. 

    (Note the last one is evidently the one STD prefers.)


    Of course, the fun doesn't stop with tinkering with only this verse's meaning -- we can apply STD's "logic" to the rest of the story, and to the whole of the OT!

    Applied to this story, STD's preferred translation renders moot the ruse and confusion had by Abimelech and the dignitary before him. If Abram was identifying Sarai as his "beloved" or his "bride" (both possible translations for H269), then the ruse fails utterly, as the intent is clearly to pass Sarai off as his sister, so that jealousy over her beauty would not put Abram's life in danger.

    ...So Abram told them she was his sister, not his bride, or his beloved.

    If he told them she was his sister, then, when the ruse is exposed in Genesis 20, Abram's defense of his statement is only a defense if he uses H269 in the same sense.

    I suppose, to be overly fair, you may actually be claiming this to be one of the first documented puns, and while that would be funny, it doesn't fit with the statement that Sarai is "the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother."

    If we apply STD's "logic" to other passages in the OT, we find that Miriam is no longer Moses' and Aaron's sister, but she is their shared beloved. Isn't that wonderful?

    Lot didn't impregnate his daughters, he impregnated his daughters-in-law! It's not that bad anymore, right?

    Wait! This works with the word for "son" as well! This means that Shem, Ham, and Japheth weren't Noah's sons, but his grandsons, or just his young boys! Who knew Noah liked the little boys?

    For fuck's sake, moron, all you need to do is admit this was an error and move on. Is it so difficult?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  148. Funny. I have said before on this site and others that I lean against spanking as a valid form of punishment for children, but if ever I encountered someone who could use a good solid spanking, or slap to the face, it's STD.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  149. T.D. Are you sure you mean "Bara"?

    ReplyDelete

  150. So it is your position that in order to be logically consistent, a person who supports the rights of interracial couples to get married would also have to support the right of a person to marry a dog?

    I should clarify, for an atheist to be logically consistent, yes.

    Are you against interracial marriage, bestial marriage or are you logically inconsistent?

    No, being a Christian there is no arguments against interracial marriage, so no I am not against it. I am against bestial marriage and same sex marriage. Unlike atheists I appeal to things other than my own 'personal feelings.'

    ReplyDelete
  151. I've read the Bible. The Bible does have rules against inter-racial and inter-faith marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  152. and bestiality and homosex is right out too.

    ReplyDelete
  153. But I'm okay with Theo marrying his dog...

    ReplyDelete

  154. If "daughter" is translated as "daughter-in-law," or "adopted daughter," as you suggest, then why is Sarai the "adopted daughter" of Abram's father, but not the "adopted daughter" of his mother? Have you some explanation for that, or do you have the audacity to suggest that the meaning of H1323 is different in the two uses in this sentence?

    Ignorance, there are many reasons for this, these 2 should suffice.

    1. Perhaps Abrahams dad had a different wife at the time the adoption occurred.

    2. Perhaps Abrahams dad had more than one wife?


    Of course, the fun doesn't stop with tinkering with only this verse's meaning -- we can apply STD's "logic" to the rest of the story, and to the whole of the OT!

    Ignorance.
    No you cannot, just because it is the same word 'bath' does not mean it has the same meaning every time it is used. So you're compltely incorrect and your ignorance is exposed once again. You even ignored what I said in my last post using the word 'bara' as an example! so not only are you ignorant, you purposefully ignore things when they prove you wrong, here is what I said from last post.


    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1254&t=KJV

    the word 'bara' is used to mean different things, it is the same word but it means different things, same thing goes with the word sister.

    Leviticus and Deuteronomy could easily be talking about both biological and adoptive or just biological, in both ways I mentioned it is condemning incest and in one way it is going above and beyond and also condemning sexual relations with adopted children as well.

    Genesis is quite clearly talking a about adoption since it is consistent with the law back then that states it was customary for the daughter-in-law to be officially adopted as a full daughter in case her husband is to die while she is traveling with his family.

    All you're doing is ignoring things, which is exacatly what I've come to expect from you. Now in your OWN WORDS.

    I await your admission of fault, and your apology for insisting the fault was mine.

    ReplyDelete
  155. ...support the right of a person to marry a dog?

    I should clarify, for an atheist to be logically consistent, yes.



    Wait, let me get this straight, you think that if one are an atheist, to be logically consistent one believe in the right to marry a dog? Is that what you're saying?

    ReplyDelete
  156. Interfaith marriage is out. Corinthians 6:14 and maybe Deuteronomy 7:3.

    ReplyDelete
  157. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Isn't an adopted sister called a yeb-ay'-meth, anyway?
    (Anyone who's up on their Hebrew help me out?)

    ReplyDelete
  159.      "I've admitted to being wrong plenty of times, not on this site because no one has shown, proved, or provided the slightest evidence that I am wrong."
         Well, that's not true. TD has been demonstrated to be wrong. He simply won't admit it.
         "You like the other ignorant atheist completely ignore the rest of my comments where I talk about lawyers."
         That backpedalling came later. So, now, he has moved the goalposts on this thread. Earlier I had said that he had not been accused of "moving goalposts" on this thread. At the time, that was correct. Things have changed. Specificly, he has "moved the goalposts" since.
         It is important to note the actual argument. I said "a cat is not capable of acting as executor of an estate. (One of the rights of married couples is that no further paperwork is required to assign the spouse as executor upon death of one member of the couple.)" This isn't an assertion that a cat is not legally entitled to marry under current laws (a moot point when talking about possible changes to the law.) It is an assertion that marriage is meaningless when applied to a cat. A cat cannot exercise any rights or privileges. Some person would have to do so on the cat's behalf.
         His response? "People leave their stuff to the pets when they die all the time." Now, if one assumes that he is recognizing that a person still has to exercise the inheritence on behalf of the pet, then he is not refuting my point. My point is that the pet cannot exercise any rights.
         My response: "They do. But surviving people have to act as executors or caretakers. The pets are not cognizant of the situation." This drives home the point. I do not deny that people leave money and property to their pets. But the pet cannot execute the right of inheritence. Some person has to do so on the pet's behalf.
         TD responded, "no they don't. Did you not read the link?" Now, either he is directly saying that no one needs to act on the pet's behalf in such a situation, or he didn't bother to read what I wrote. Either way, he is wrong and this is demonstrated.
         Now, as I have said, later he backpedals and says that "executor of the estate" is irrelevant. But it is quite relevant to my argument which he convinces himself that he has refuted. The only thing blocking same-sex marriages (as with interracial marriages before them) is a law specificly prohibiting them. The concept of a same-sex marriage is meaningful. The concept of a man-pet marriage is not. A pet could not exercise the rights associated with marriage even if the law explicitly said it was okay.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Pvblivs, I think it's funny, and I think you do, too, that while we (you and I) have had differences of opinion, we more often find ourselves banding together against foolish opponents, and this thread is no exception.

    You're absolutely right, of course. We're attacking it from different aspects of the same thing: I harp on consent, you note the execution of right. In either case, bestial marriage fails to obtain without removing the requirement that both parties consent and be right-executing persons.

    STD either fails to see this, or ignores it as he lobs more of his feces at the thread. The connotations of 'marriage' have changed many times over the centuries -- both in America and in the world at-large -- and if he hangs his argument regarding bestial marriage on the change of the status quo, it necessarily fails, or is at the least moot. Same-sex marriage constitutes nothing more than a further change to the status quo, little removed from previous changes. The only thing same-sex marriage changes is the requirement that the parties be of opposite gender. That's it! No one's rights are trampled, no one's privileges or responsibilities diminished. Rather, a whole class of individual is granted equality.

    STD and company seek to prevent this equality from being enacted, and worse, they do so for purely religious reasons. If nothing else, the fact that the only "cogent" argument made against same-sex marriage is a religious one should compel us to ignore the objection and allow it.

    As I've noted earlier in this thread (or possibly its predecessor), I am especially struck by the deliberately selective nature of the attack against same-sex marriage made by Christians (and others). Not one of them is nearly so loud when it comes to the various types of marriages which are perfectly legal, yet which are also quite against their current view of marriage in keeping with their religion. Where is the outcry to deny "open" marriages? Where is the outcry to deny drunken Vegas weddings? Where is the outcry to deny "shotgun" weddings? Where is the outcry to deny "gold-digger" weddings?

    The only type of marriage to which these obnoxious hens cackle is same-sex marriage. If they were honest and consistent, they'd cackle just as loudly over those other 'bastardized' forms of marriage.

    I suppose much of the humor lies in the fact that tools such as STD bitch that we apply only "personal feelings," yet we have shown time and again that we are in fact applying logic, and that he is the one guilty of applying personal feelings -- feelings based on a particular interpretation of the bible, and nothing more.

    The saddest part is the relative silence on the part of those who normally contribute here. These forums are meant as a place to exchange ideas and positions, not for two or three people to entertain the lurkers. Hell, the blog's owner hasn't posted anything meaningful on this topic since STD showed up, and that's quite the deafening silence...

    Whatever. Same-sex marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away. Let these peasants have cake.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  161. You did miss the point, people can leave stuff to their pets if they die, that was the point. I never inferred that people are not required to act as caretakers, the stuff can get left to the pet and a relative or lawyer can act as a care taker, which is no different than what happens when money and things are left to a mentally handicapped person. 

    Nope, I didn't - the link clearly states you can't leave anything to your pet. You're right, you didn't infer (that was a mistake on my part), instead you stated explicitly that a caretaker wasn't required - again in direct contradiction to the article you linked.

    The estate has to be put into a trust with explicit instructions that the proceeds of the trust are used to care for the pet.

    This is not the same as what happens with mentally handicapped people - you can leave money directly to a MHP without the need for trusts or caretakers (obviously this would generally be inadvisable but is, nevertheless, legal).

    ReplyDelete

  162. Well, that's not true. TD has been demonstrated to be wrong. He simply won't admit it.

    no, these 'demonstrations' are nothing but demonstrations of your ignorance. You try to prove where I am wrong but it is easily rectified with no inconsistencies or anything for that matter you ignorant atheist.

    That backpedalling came later. So, now, he has moved the goalposts on this thread. Earlier I had said that he had not been accused of "moving goalposts" on this thread. At the time, that was correct. Things have changed. Specificly, he has "moved the goalposts" since.

    No moving the goalposts you ignorant atheist. Look here is the original link.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ehow.com%2Fhow_2122526_leave-money-pet-will.html&ei=3ZMwSsbuM6GNtgeyzejUBQ&usg=AFQjCNH28SCH9k0mbmnzVuS7JZ1i24LWDw&sig2=wVTARdWqY1dbTTGMI2BmhQ

    look what it says

    Make sure the people you choose to serve as trustees understand they'll be legally responsible to make sure the money is spent on your pet. A pet trust is not just a request. A pet trust is an enforceable trust and the pet is indeed the primary beneficiary.

    that easily qualifies as a lawyer or relative. So you're ignorant on that one.


    It is an assertion that marriage is meaningless when applied to a cat. A cat cannot exercise any rights or privileges. Some person would have to do so on the cat's behalf.

    Wrong, like I said, the law could easily read '1 adult and an animal' the marriage does not have to 'mean' anything to the cat anymore than bestial sex has to 'mean' anything to the cat. A point you continually ignore.

    Now, if one assumes that he is recognizing that a person still has to exercise the inheritence on behalf of the pet, then he is not refuting my point. My point is that the pet cannot exercise any rights.

    It doesn't matter, like I said it is no different than leaving your stuff to a mentally handicapped person. It makes your whole 'executor of estate' point irrelevant.

    My response: "They do. But surviving people have to act as executors or caretakers. The pets are not cognizant of the situation." This drives home the point. I do not deny that people leave money and property to their pets. But the pet cannot execute the right of inheritence. Some person has to do so on the pet's behalf.

    They don't need to be cognizant of marriage anymore than they don't need to be cognizant of having bestial sex in the first place or someone owning them as pets in teh first place. Another irrelevant point.

    The only thing blocking same-sex marriages (as with interracial marriages before them) is a law specificly prohibiting them. The concept of a same-sex marriage is meaningful. The concept of a man-pet marriage is not. A pet could not exercise the rights associated with marriage even if the law explicitly said it was okay.

    The concept of same-sex marriage being meaningful is your personal opinion, the concept of bestial marriages being meaningful is also the personal opinion of the bestial marriage advocates. So you have nothing but your personal opinion. It is also the personal opinion of majority of the united states that same sex marriage should not be recognized. It is also your personal opinion that man-pet marriage is not meaningful and blocking them from getting married is a violation of the mans equal rights.
    A pet does not need rights, they don't need rights to engage in bestiality sex in the first place nor do they need rights to become someones pet. Making your whole point about the pet 'not exercising rights' irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete

  163. You're absolutely right, of course. We're attacking it from different aspects of the same thing: I harp on consent, you note the execution of right. In either case, bestial marriage fails to obtain without removing the requirement that both parties consent and be right-executing persons.

    Consent is not required to engage in sexual acts with the pets or own the pets in the first place, so your consent point is irrelevant. Execution of right is also irrelevant there is no 'rights' involved in engaging in sexual acts with pets or to own the pets at all. Both points irrelevant, something both of you ignorant atheists ignore.


    Same-sex marriage constitutes nothing more than a further change to the status quo, little removed from previous changes. The only thing same-sex marriage changes is the requirement that the parties be of opposite gender. That's it! No one's rights are trampled, no one's privileges or responsibilities diminished. Rather, a whole class of individual is granted equality.

    Bestial marriages constitutes nothing more than a further change of the status quo, little removed from previous changes. The only thing bestial marriage changes is the requirement that the parties be of the same species. That's it! No ones rights are trampled, no ones privileges are revoked or responsibilities diminished. Rather a whole class of individuals is granted equality. Hilarious, your logic works for bestial marriages as well, thanks for proving my point.


    STD and company seek to prevent this equality from being enacted, and worse, they do so for purely religious reasons. If nothing else, the fact that the only "cogent" argument made against same-sex marriage is a religious one should compel us to ignore the objection and allow it.

    Stan and company seek to prevent this equality from being enacted, and worse, they do so for purely personal reasons. If nothing else, the fact that the only "cogent" argument made against bestial marriage is a personal opinion should compel us to ignore the objection and allow it.
    Once again logic works for bestial marriages as well. That's twice.

    ReplyDelete

  164. I am especially struck by the deliberately selective nature of the attack against same-sex marriage made by Christians (and others). Not one of them is nearly so loud when it comes to the various types of marriages which are perfectly legal, yet which are also quite against their current view of marriage in keeping with their religion. Where is the outcry to deny "open" marriages? Where is the outcry to deny drunken Vegas weddings? Where is the outcry to deny "shotgun" weddings? Where is the outcry to deny "gold-digger" weddings?

    I am especially struck by the deliberately selective nature of fighting for only same sex marriages made by atheists. Not one of them is very loud when it comes to various types of marriages that are also not legal, upon which they differentiate not on any objective logical factual evidence, but upon nothing their own personal opinions. Where is the outcry to allow marriage to in animate objects, or marriages to imaginary people or things, or dead people?

    Hilarious, stan proves my point.


    The only type of marriage to which these obnoxious hens cackle is same-sex marriage. If they were honest and consistent, they'd cackle just as loudly over those other 'bastardized' forms of marriage.

    the only tpe of marriage to which these obnoxious hens fight for is same-sex marriage. If htey were honest and consistent, they'd fight just as loudly over those other forms of marriage and violation of rights and privilege..

    This is just too funny. Stans logic and rhetoric can equally be applied to supporting bestial marriage.


    I suppose much of the humor lies in the fact that tools such as STD bitch that we apply only "personal feelings," yet we have shown time and again that we are in fact applying logic, and that he is the one guilty of applying personal feelings -- feelings based on a particular interpretation of the bible, and nothing more.

    I suppose much of the humor lies in the fact that tools like Stan get upset when their confusion of logic and personal feelings is exposed, and that the Christians are not relying upon personal feelings like the ignorant atheists, but valid interpretations of a genuine historical text that is our objective moral standard.


    The saddest part is the relative silence on the part of those who normally contribute here. These forums are meant as a place to exchange ideas and positions, not for two or three people to entertain the lurkers. Hell, the blog's owner hasn't posted anything meaningful on this topic since STD showed up, and that's quite the deafening silence...

    Hilarious, this is nothing but an appeal to majority and an argument from silence. Not to mention down right frustration when these ignorant atheists ideas are shown to be as illogical and irrational as the atheism they adhere too.


    Whatever. Same-sex marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away. Let these peasants have cake.

    Whatever. Bestial marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away. Let these peasents have cake.

    Thanks for proving my point stan.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Consent is not required to engage in sexual acts with the pets or own the pets in the first place, so your consent point is irrelevant. Execution of right is also irrelevant there is no 'rights' involved in engaging in sexual acts with pets or to own the pets at all. 

    For someone complaining we confuse sex with marriage, you sure do it a lot... We're talking about marriage, not sex. You lose.

    Bestial marriages constitutes nothing more than a further change of the status quo, little removed from previous changes. The only thing bestial marriage changes is the requirement that the parties be of the same species. That's it! No ones rights are trampled, no ones privileges are revoked or responsibilities diminished. Rather a whole class of individuals is granted equality. Hilarious, your logic works for bestial marriages as well, thanks for proving my point. 

    Here, STD has "cleverly" altered my own statement, including removal of appropriate punctuation, in a vain attempt at using my own statements against me. What STD is far too stupid to understand, however, is that by altering my statement, he has de facto admitted that it is valid, and admitted that it is unnecessary to the cause of bestial marriage. That is, rather than me making his point, as he is deluded into thinking, he has instead made my point.

    Thanks, dipshit.

    STD goes on in the quoted response to continue to "cleverly" replace key words in my statement with key words which he thinks somehow strengthen his position, but again he fails to note that he reinforces not his, but my position. He also intentionally ignores the pivotal requirement of marital parties in my argument: that both parties must be consenting adults, capable of executing a contract. Until STD deals with that aspect -- aside from an ad hoc removal of it entirely -- he fails to make any point on this subject whatsoever.

    Indeed, even he must realize that the relatively recent inclusion of the mutual consent clause is a change over the status quo of marriage in the past. If he wishes to revert to that version of marriage, then bestial marriage might become a factor.

    Of course, STD will adamantly deny any of this is true, and revert to his Dunning-Kruger behavior, but what else should we expect from an impotent, retarded troll?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  166.      "No moving the goalposts you ignorant atheist. Look here is the original link."
         The link would only be useful in determining whether it supported what TD was saying or not. As near as can be determined, TD had not read his own link. It did not support what he was saying and he backpedalled after he got called on it. The only "ignorant atheist" here is TD.
         "[T]he marriage does not have to 'mean' anything to the cat anymore than bestial sex has to 'mean' anything to the cat."
         Incorrect. The very concept of marriage is something entered willingly by all parties. A law saying that a man could marry a cat would be as meaningful as one saying that truck tires could be square circles. Such an absurdity could be written into the law books. (People have even attempted to legislate the value of pi.) But it would be incoherent.
         "They don't need to be cognizant of marriage anymore than they don't need to be cognizant of having bestial sex in the first place or someone owning them as pets in teh first place."
         Actually, they do. Marriage requires cognizance. It requires an active participation by all parties.
         "The concept of same-sex marriage being meaningful is your personal opinion."
         No, since he has to use his beloved DOMA to argue against same-sex marriage, he shows he has a concept of what it means. He just doesn't want it recognized by law

    ReplyDelete
  167.      "Consent is not required to engage in sexual acts with the pets or own the pets in the first place, so your consent point is irrelevant."
         Marriage is about quite a bit more than sexual acts. The "ignorant atheist" TD is engaging in a non sequitur here.
         "Bestial marriages constitutes nothing more than a further change of the status quo, little removed from previous changes. The only thing bestial marriage changes is the requirement that the parties be of the same species."
         That would be true if non-humans understood the concept of marriage and could enter into such arrangements. TD is trying to force fit a meaningless concept.
         "Stan and company seek to prevent this equality from being enacted, and worse, they do so for purely personal reasons. If nothing else, the fact that the only 'cogent' argument made against bestial marriage is a personal opinion should compel us to ignore the objection and allow it.
    Once again logic works for bestial marriages as well."
         Well, that was an utter failure. How many dogs and cats are clamoring for marriage rights? That's right. None. In the same-sex marriage issue, both partners wish to marry each other. A point that TD ignores.
         "Where is the outcry to allow marriage to inanimate objects, or marriages to imaginary people or things, or dead people?"
         Although TD directs this at atheists (which I am not) I can still note that the answer is plain. Inanimate object, imaginary people, and corpses do not seek to marry. Marriage requires active consent of all parties.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Holy cow, 'Theological Discourse' is one obnoxious idiot.
    I know people have different points of view. I like that. Discussion is healthy. I don't think Theolog Dis is interested in discussion. I think he's more interested in "winning".
    I'd be surprised if he wasn't laughing, right now. His blog is called "Truth in Fighting" but to Theolog "fighting" is closer to "trolling"
    But that being said, holy cow, 'Theological Discourse' is one obnoxious idiot.

    Anyway. The topic of the post is "homosexuality in the Bible"

    Get offended if you wish but I will not accept the evil wickedness of unrepentant sinning. God, nor I, condone sinning.
    First, there's no proof this God of your exists.
    Second, your ideas of "unrepentant sinning" seem to be focused a lot on homosexuality. I don't recall any "tell a lie - no marriage for you!" posts or a "no marriage for people who work on Sunday" post.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>