Oh well, pity Abbot will probably win this election.
A gay couple will never result in new life, ever. Universal biology dictates that science.
A couple of the opposite sexes is needed for the rearing of children, again dictated with biology.
May I make a prediction? If you can provide empirical evidence to back your claim, my position will change. However you believe in emotion and guess what Makmak? Emotion changes, with everyone. Nice playing with you ; ) I have some children to raise, with one functional arm. Wait, you have me on ignore! JAJAJA
Oh well, pity Abbot will probably win this election.
Oh well, pity Abbot will probably win this election.
The Bible didn't recognize "slavery" as a natural condition. Servitude was not the ownership of a lesser being in those times except in the case of Egypt where the Hebrews were viewed as less than human.
It was often a form of payment, as in indentured servant and after a time, most were free to leave, if they so chose. But often, they were considered members of the family.
The point is that his comparison was a non-sequitur. In that he is uninformed about the culture differences between the ancient Hebrews and the slave owners of the previous 4 centuries.
I don't disagree that gays are born with it. I am not particularly affronted if people are granted coupled benefits be they gay, or just friends who choose to never marry, or brothers or sisters who live together as a partial family unit, or what not. But a marriage it is not and never will be.
The dichotomy in the male-female pair bond is unique and cannot be replicated in a same sex pair bond. I have never seen anybody make the case that it is or even can be. Love, does not a marriage make, it's a lot more than that.
Until somebody can prove that same sexed couples are the same as opposite sexed couples that are in the understood definition of marriage, you cannot call it that.
To me it's not about 'rights' I don't really care from that perspective. I care from the perspective that you cannot make something be, what it is not.
I think people think of this issue two dimensionally, only politically. They don't think about what it really means. You start blurring definitions of what things are willy-nilly, you introduce slippery-slopes which often render meanings useless.
Most of his assertions were non-sequiturs.
Unless of course it's a pair of lesbians, one or both of whom are artificially inseminated. Yes, technically their child will not be a genetic combination of both of them, but genetics has a fix for that, too. It should be possible to combine the nuclei of two eggs to create a zygote containing the genetic material of both female parents in vitro, then implant the zygote into the uterus of one of the two women.
Theoretically, two men could do this as well, but they'd still need a surrogate mother until the technology exists (and it will, in time) to gestate a fetus to term starting with a single-celled zygote.
So, they cook up the sperm in the kitchen sink or do we include a third (or yet another) party? A party that has little/nothing to do with the coupling?
Hell, it's possible to fuse human and animal zygotes and it will be entirely possible to, one day, carry them 'to term'. Why burden functional humans with reproduction?. It should equally be true to genetically and gestationally engineer non-gay fetuses. Seriously, why wouldn't we?
More saliently, once sex and gender is entirely removed from the reproductive process, why have it at all? With state-sponsored healthcare (or not), who pays for all of this added cost and complexity? Maybe Barack W. Obama 'invests' in asexual human reproduction?
I understand the theory, yet has this actually ever been done successfully? How many times has the science failed? These are honest questions btw.
My wife was a surrogate for a heterosexual couple (actually my pastor and his wife). They combined one sperm and one egg (they actually did multiple, but for this discussion lets just say two), then they inserted two embryos with 10 cells each into my wife. One took and the other did not and 9-10 months later a baby girl was born. It was an incredible blessing for that family.
How successful is in vitro fertilization? Extremely successful. If you factor in all "failed attempts" of both methods, it's actually more likely to result in a live birth than doing it the "old fashioned way" (though definitely not as much fun).
The point is that a homosexual couple can produce a child, it just takes a couple of extra steps. For the lesbians, it involves finding some sperm. For the gay men, it involves finding an egg and a surrogate mother.
My further point is that advances in technology and embryonics will, I predict, allow the combination of gametes even from two same-sex partners, and even someday eliminate the need for surrogate mothers altogether.
This is good for hetero couples as well: if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she doesn't have to: she can gestate her baby in a machine. Which means that only the babies that are wanted will be produced. Cheap implantable contraceptives should prevent accidents. Sex will no longer be for procreation, but for pleasure.
Religious people, who probably think that keeping women from suffereing through childbirth is somehow an affront to God (and are leery about the whole "sex for pleasure" thing) probably wont like this at all, but imagine their dismay when they realize that fully embracing gay marriage and the technological advances to accomodate it could prevent or actually end abortion.
I don't know who you are talking about, but I am one of the Religious people that loves Sex for Pleasure, and God would not have made it pleasurable if it was not suppose to be. He just set up boundaries.
Right, but many religious people (maybe even you) believe that sex for pleasure should only be within the confines (or "boundaries" as you put it) of a committed, monogamous, heterosexual married relationship.
And the rationale usually used is that sex is (and should remain) primarily for procreation. Sex that doesn't (or can't) result in a child is somehow valued less than sex that does. Ergo, relationships that will never (without a lot of technological intervention) result in a child are condemned or at least looked upon as less valuable than relationships that can or do.
The boundaries were set up in the Garden of Eden. I do not want to get into another argument about multiple partners and all that; we have beaten that to death.
Now lets discuss the other topic you brought up, procreation or pleasure. Well I have had a vasectomy so I am not wanting to conceive another child with my wife. All sex I am having with my wife is 100% for pleasure (2-3 times a week). I am Southern Baptist and my church says that sex for pleasure is alright and ok if within the confines of marriage. I even took a class at Seminary on the Christian Home, and it is taught in Southern Baptist Seminary that sex for pleasure is a-ok and it is being taught to future Pastors to be presented in church as such.
Now I do know there was a sect of the RCC that taught that sex for any other purpose that conceiving a child was bad, but that was taught back in like 1000-1200. I have no clue if they do it today though.
Anyone else is willing to chime in on other Denominations if you want. I can only speak for Southern Baptists.
Really? The only sex-related "boundary" I remember reading about being connected with the Garden of Eden was "if you're ashamed of your naked junk, it's a dead giveaway that you've been eating fruit off the Smart Tree."
In fact, the only notable sex-related story from the book of Genesis that sticks in my mind is the story of Onan, who was killed for pulling his dick out right before he came. The take-home lesson here being, "if you're gonna fuck your dead brother's wife, for God's sake make sure you knock her up!"
Most of the boundaries were erected (yuk yuk) in the book of Leviticus.
Good idea. It's pretty plain that God approves of polygyny. Polyandry, not so much.
The irony is that I added that in as an afterthought to my main point of Pain of Childbirth Greatly Increased as penalty for eating Smart Fruit, but please continue.
You know why Baptists never have sex standing up, right? Might lead to dancing.
There's a great scene in Like Water for Chocolate, where the protagonist, Pedro, is finally going have sex for the first time with his wife Rosaura, whom he doesn't love (he's in love with her little sister, Tita), right before dousing the lights and covering her with the matrimonial sheet (with lace-embroidered slit in the center), he prays to God to forgive him for what he's about to do, and to assure God that it's not for lust or desire, but "to create a son to serve You".
That's the Catholic take on it, at least it was in Revolutionary Mexico. Note, by the way, that Pedro doesn't go through any of this when he fucks Tita.
All right, why do you think most heterosexual religious people from any sect or denomination is so down on gay marriage in particular, or gay people in general? Is it primarily:
A. Because homosexuality is condemned as an abomination in the Bible and thus shouldn't be tolerated;
B. Because homosexuality does not promote procreation, and only procreative sex between married couples is of value to society;
C. Because homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular will, if allowed to gain acceptance in society, undermine the legitimacy of heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage; or
D. Because the idea of a man sticking his wiener in another man's butthole is icky.
Morally I back the above. The US used to take the Moral high ground every chance it could, but now not so much. It is about making sure everyone is equal and special.
I am on the fence when it comes to the US either allowing it or not. My only question is if you allow homosexual marriage why not allow polygamy? Will the US government force churches to marry homosexuals even though it is against the Bible? The US is already forcing Catholic Charities to cover contraceptives even though it is against their religion. When will it stop?
The other stuff you quoted I will take as you just trying to be funny. Southern Baptists are now open to dancing. Older people not so much, but the SBC is getting back to the Bible, and getting away from building hedges of rules that are not Biblical.
Really no reason not to at this point. If someone is talented enough to keep more than one spouse happy, more power to them.
This shouldn't happen. Plenty of marriages happen outside the church. If the government does such a thing, every religious freedom allowed Muslims and Jews should void.
This is wrong, on many levels.
It isn't going to, ever at this point. The government is too big to fail. We are on a path to tyranny or collapse and revolution. There is little hope of turning back at this point.
Pray for your kids' kids, and their kids too.
No reason I can think of why not. Would legal polygamy hurt your marriage or affect your life in any appreciable way?
Constitutionally, the government shouldn't force churches to do anything. That would violate the first amendment. At the same time, it shouldn't forbid two people who want to get married (whether in a synagogue, a church, a drive-in chapel or a Wiccan Lodge) to do so and call it "marriage", with all the legal benefits and responsibilities afforded any other married couple.
But as for the against the bible thing... It's been beaten with the same stick that has beaten the polygamy horse, but of course the same morality code of Leviticus 11-26 that condemns homosexual sex also forbids eating pork.
We can presume (though he never specifically condemned either practice) that being a Jew, Jesus likely abstained from both eating bacon and gay sex. And according to Jesus, those laws wouldn't change one tiny bit until Heaven and Earth had passed.
At least, not until Peter supposedly (according to Paul) had a vision in which pigs, and dogs, and bats, and eels, and all the previously "unclean" things that God had spent all of Leviticus 11 forbidding, were now made "clean" and okay to eat. But if Leviticus 11 was nullified, why not the rest of Leviticus too? Well, that's easy. Paul hated homosexuality, and even if Jesus came down and told Peter that it was okay to go down on Paul's Peter, Paul would definitely have NOT legitimized this partictular Act of the Apostles by writing it down.
And what about Mark 7:18 and 19? Jesus said that nothing going into a man defiled a man, it was only what came out of a man that defiled him, for it doesn't go into his heart but through his stomach, and then out of the body.
Now, this verse has been interpreted by Christians to mean that bacon-wrapped shrimp dipped in cheese and deep-fried on a stick is acceptable Christian cuisine (especially at county fairs), despite the fact that Jesus was actually talking about washing your hands before a meal.
But hey, fair's fair. I think gay men can and should argue that those verses also mean that buttsex and blowjobs are okay, as long as condoms are employed (so that nothing comes out of the man).
Point being, if you're for or against something, you can probably get the Bible to back you up on it.
Your answers are distinctly biased against religion even though there's HYUUGE amounts of non-religious anti-gay sentiment in the world. Also, your suggestions are biased towards A religion while there are plenty of religions the world 'round that treat homosexuality as inferior to heterosexuality.
A male inmate rapes a fellow male inmate. For some odd reason in a largely non-religious society of felons, this brings shame on the victim. Moreover, the rapist repeats the action to the point where it's by far, the dominant, if only, portion of his sexual behavior. When the rapist is asked to confirm or deny his homosexuality, the abundant response is for him to declare himself heterosexual as if there is some stigma (again presumably non-religious as we're talking multiple-rapist felon) associated with simply being involved in homosexual acts. This pattern is true for prisons and militaries around the globe. The same situation in heterosexual roles is virtually unheard of (certainly victims incur shame, but the rapists rarely, if ever, deny their predilection or orientation). The disgust with homosexuality has little to do with religion.
Homosexuals won't be the first to reproduce asexually. Their nature as second-class peoples is inherent beyond what any good book might proclaim. They're like the slide rule, if humanity collapsed tomorrow and we had to reinvent everything from the ground up, we'd go straight from pencil and paper to transistors and write the idea of slide rules as a footnote into the new history books.
Christianity is far from the only religion to treat sex without reproduction as an inferior or undesirable act.
I said "religious people" because I have no idea what the atheist objection to homosexuality is. Perhaps you know.
And I only singled out Christianity because at least 80% of posters on PWI are Christian. Didn't figure enough people would know enough about the Quran or Bhagavad Gita for it to be worthwhile to reference it.
But to make you happy, why do PEOPLE, irrespective of religious affiliation, consider homosexuals to be "second class peoples" as you put it? Because homosexuals are and have been throughout all of human history the minority, and are considered weak and therefore easy targets for abuse? Or is there another, non-religious (and by extension non-moral) reason for the stigma?
And if "humanity collapsed tomorrow", who would "reinvent everything"? Humans, I take it. Your postulate is that starting over, and knowing what we know now, we would not include homosexuality into the new paradigm.
Good idea. While you're at it, try to do something about left-handedness and red hair and freckles on men. Those were bad ideas, too.
I would say you are wrong.
Your point about Homosexuality is denounced both in the OT and NT.
The pork reference was to prepare Peter for the bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism to become a Christian. A lot of the Epistles denounce the Judaizers.
V, I respect your opinion on a lot of things, and I am willing to listen to your responses. You almost sound like you hate Christians. If I am off base I do apologize.
I would like to believe I am a peacemaker, I do not stir up shit just to stir up shit, at least when it comes to Jesus. I like to have a good time and laugh. It is not my place to judge anyone, that is the Lords right.
Nah, I don't hate any particular group of people, even when they do or say or think what I consider to be silly things.
I don't even hate individuals all that much. Not even Karado, even though he bugs the shit out of me sometimes.
If you'll notice, I very seldom insult people. I will ridicule ideas that I consider erroneous, or beliefs that I believe to be unfounded, and I especially laugh at belief systems that allow one group of people to hate another group. Could be a religious belief, could be a political belief, could be a pseudoscientific ethnological or sociological belief.
Glad that you are a peacemaker. You shall receive peace.
As for me, do not imagine that I came to bring peace to PWI. I came not to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a conservative against a liberal, and a creationist against an evolutionist, and a pro-lifer against a pro-choicer. And a man's enemies shall be the members of his own forum.
I'm kidding, of course. I have no agenda as sinister as that. I just like shaking up the ant farm sometimes.