Train Wreck: Continued

[Busta]

OH -- that one doesn't have a link yet. It's a terrarium/feeder tank. I keep rosey-reds in there for my cuttlefish to eat and a ton of freshwater crabs for him to eat too. There's 2 tadpoles (one now -- the other's already a frog) and 4 frogs and a HUGE tiger salamandar.
Then more assorted fish and stuff.
Half water/Half plants. I'll put pics up soon.

My boys love crabs.
Do you have any Mollusks, living plants or muscles?
I've seen some pretty wild looking shrimp before, too.
How much does your average aquarium cawst to maintain?

 

[Busta]

Hay Columbusite,
I was reading through the site that you linked to ( http://web.morons.org/feature/marriage.jsp#privilege ) and it's missing a rebuttal to the "homosexuality is a disorder" argument. Now, I have scientific evidence to back that argument up, but I was wondering if you have a similar rebuttal link for that argument.

In the mean-time, back to the animals.

p.s. I was surprised too see that I came to some of those arguments on my own. It seems that opposition to gay 'marriage followes a pattern.

 

[Duke]

Of course back to the animals. I am trying to get my photo album somewhere you can see, but am having no luck. I am going try again.


Duke

 

[sissy-boy]

My boys love crabs.
Do you have any Mollusks, living plants or muscles?
I've seen some pretty wild looking shrimp before, too.
How much does your average aquarium cawst to maintain?

My 46 gallon is kind of a mollusk tank. I have the cuttlefish (which surprisingly IS a mollusk, a HUGE conch shell that eats snails, a flame scallop and a gorgeous blue clam. People don't realize it, but the clam has eyes too. If you move your hand in front of the light it moves and closes because it thinks a predator is near.

There are REALLY wild shrimp. I have a harlequin shrimp and I just got a sand sifting starfish that the shrimp has a strange relationship with. The shrimp sits on the star and the star just waits while the shrimp grooms it. It's been like 5 days now and the star just lets the shrimp clean it or something.

I'll put the photos up.

The tank is not that hard to maintain. It's the livestock prices that hurt. The only thing that you really have to do is watch the nitrates and do monthly water changes -- so salt is the only thing that you have to buy as maintenace. On my 4 tanks I spend probably $15 a month on maintenance. Not too bad considering all the fish I have. But with the amount of food that the cuttlefish eats it's probably a little more.

 

[sissy-boy]

Hay Columbusite,
I was reading through the site that you linked to ( http://web.morons.org/feature/marriage.jsp#privilege ) and it's missing a rebuttal to the "homosexuality is a disorder" argument. Now, I have scientific evidence to back that argument up, but I was wondering if you have a similar rebuttal link for that argument.

In the mean-time, back to the animals.

p.s. I was surprised too see that I came to some of those arguments on my own. It seems that opposition to gay 'marriage followes a pattern.

Morons.org is GREAT!! I subscribe to their newsletter and get weekly stories. The editor is a great writer and debater and ALWAYS has something intelligent to add to the mix.

I really enjoy his passive agressive stance too -- he's HILARIOUS!!

 

[Duke]

My 46 gallon is kind of a mollusk tank. I have the cuttlefish (which surprisingly IS a mollusk, a HUGE conch shell that eats snails, a flame scallop and a gorgeous blue clam. People don't realize it, but the clam has eyes too. If you move your hand in front of the light it moves and closes because it thinks a predator is near.

There are REALLY wild shrimp. I have a harlequin shrimp and I just got a sand sifting starfish that the shrimp has a strange relationship with. The shrimp sits on the star and the star just waits while the shrimp grooms it. It's been like 5 days now and the star just lets the shrimp clean it or something.

I'll put the photos up.

The tank is not that hard to maintain. It's the livestock prices that hurt. The only thing that you really have to do is watch the nitrates and do monthly water changes -- so salt is the only thing that you have to buy as maintenace. On my 4 tanks I spend probably $15 a month on maintenance. Not too bad considering all the fish I have. But with the amount of food that the cuttlefish eats it's probably a little more.

That is so awesome.


Anyway, I am trying to get my photos up where you can see them, but the server is not cooperating.


Duke

 

[Columbusite]

Hay Columbusite,
I was reading through the site that you linked to ( http://web.morons.org/feature/marriage.jsp#privilege ) and it's missing a rebuttal to the "homosexuality is a disorder" argument. Now, I have scientific evidence to back that argument up, but I was wondering if you have a similar rebuttal link for that argument.

In the mean-time, back to the animals.

p.s. I was surprised too see that I came to some of those arguments on my own. It seems that opposition to gay 'marriage followes a pattern.

Actually, in the "unnatural" one homosexuality is compared to disorders.

 

[Columbusite]

John 8:1-11.
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more

Looks like you forgot you just posted this: "Matthew 5:17-18;
17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." The "law" is OT law and is to be followed today and that includes stoning gays to death. Notice that the NT also says gays are "worthy of death". This is exactly why I don't follow the Bible. You just quoted a verse to justify your hatred of gays in which Jesus upholds OT law. Now you give me a quote of his saying not to, given that one "sins no more". So stoning would then be OK if she didn't listen and if a gay person doesn't switch to someone of the opposite sex. Jesus said some good things, but he was also very contradictory while preaching peace and at the same time saying "I am come not to bring peace, but a sword." Looking at the history of Christianity I'd have to agree. He did bring a sword, which was only very recently sheathed.

 

[Busta]

Looks like you forgot you just posted this: "Matthew 5:17-18;
17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." The "law" is OT law and is to be followed today and that includes stoning gays to death. Notice that the NT also says gays are "worthy of death". This is exactly why I don't follow the Bible. You just quoted a verse to justify your hatred of gays in which Jesus upholds OT law. Now you give me a quote of his saying not to, given that one "sins no more". So stoning would then be OK if she didn't listen and if a gay person doesn't switch to someone of the opposite sex. Jesus said some good things, but he was also very contradictory while preaching peace and at the same time saying "I am come not to bring peace, but a sword." Looking at the history of Christianity I'd have to agree. He did bring a sword, which was only very recently sheathed.

Before Jesus, yes, it was commonly understood that people who engaged in homosexual sex were to be put to death. Jesus, speaking with the voice of He who made the old law, clarifies the issue with his example in John 8:1-11 by applying Leviticus 19:18 "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". Jesus shows us that Leviticus 19:18, being based on the 2 greatest of the commandments (Mathew 22:34-40), shows us that no human should stone anyone, because we are just as guilty of sin, no different then a homosexual person.

The difference between Leviticus 18:22 (I quoted) and Leviticus 20:13 (you quoted), is that the first is a rule for personal conduct (still applies), and the second is a warning of punishment (Jesus clarified how we should treat each other, then died so that we may live); it doesn't say that we must put the person to death, it says "they shall surely be put to death". "Death", in biblical terms, miens separation from God (= hell). That's no different than any other sin. Your confusion comes from not understanding the final sacrifice.

Jesus died for our sins.....no one goes to hell....we all live happily ever after. arty

We are not to engage in homosexual acts, nor punish those who do. :cheers:

When you learn about purgatory and Jesus's sacrifice, you will see that all people learn the error of their ways and all have been forgiven.

"You just quoted a verse to justify your hatred of gays in which Jesus upholds OT law."
That's a nice conspiracy, but I quoted that verse to show that Jesus did not abolish the old law, he came to fulfill it (a similar controversy exists over N/T adultery and divorce). Declining to participate in the deliberate death of another is an act of such fulfillment. That is why I do not support Capitol Punishment, nor abortion.

L.isten O.bserve V.alue E.mpower thy neighbor.

 

[sissy-boy]

Before Jesus, yes, it was commonly understood that people who engaged in homosexual sex were to be put to death. Jesus, speaking with the voice of He who made the old law, clarifies the issue with his example in John 8:1-11 by applying Leviticus 19:18 "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". Jesus shows us that Leviticus 19:18, being based on the 2 greatest of the commandments (Mathew 22:34-40), shows us that no human should stone anyone, because we are just as guilty of sin, no different then a homosexual person.

The difference between Leviticus 18:22 (I quoted) and Leviticus 20:13 (you quoted), is that the first is a rule for personal conduct (still applies), and the second is a warning of punishment (Jesus clarified how we should treat each other, then died so that we may live); it doesn't say that we must put the person to death, it says "they shall surely be put to death". "Death", in biblical terms, miens separation from God (= hell). That's no different than any other sin. Your confusion comes from not understanding the final sacrifice.

Jesus died for our sins.....no one goes to hell....we all live happily ever after. arty

We are not to engage in homosexual acts, nor punish those who do. :cheers:

When you learn about purgatory and Jesus's sacrifice, you will see that all people learn the error of their ways and all have been forgiven.

"You just quoted a verse to justify your hatred of gays in which Jesus upholds OT law."
That's a nice conspiracy, but I quoted that verse to show that Jesus did not abolish the old law, he came to fulfill it (a similar controversy exists over N/T adultery and divorce). Declining to participate in the deliberate death of another is an act of such fulfillment. That is why I do not support Capitol Punishment, nor abortion.

L.isten O.bserve V.alue E.mpower thy neighbor.

If you actually believe in your fairy-tale bibilical tripe, then tell me, why are homosexuals punished by christians by passing state laws to ban them from marrying? Is this not playing God??

 

[Columbusite]

Before Jesus, yes, it was commonly understood that people who engaged in homosexual sex were to be put to death. Jesus, speaking with the voice of He who made the old law, clarifies the issue with his example in John 8:1-11 by applying Leviticus 19:18 "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". Jesus shows us that Leviticus 19:18, being based on the 2 greatest of the commandments (Mathew 22:34-40), shows us that no human should stone anyone, because we are just as guilty of sin, no different then a homosexual person.

See, this is where we are differing and won't accept the other's argument as valid. I base my views on reason (natural) while yours are based on the Bible (revelation). Anyway in response to your post I see something very interesting. Jesus says that no one should stone anyone, but before that he said that they must. It was prefectly good then, but not now? Funny how you seem so certain of your interpretation. It only took you guys about 2000 years to figure out that killing people over religious matters is despicable. Of course, if you take Levitcus 19:18 in context the "children of thy neighbor" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" only applies to fellow believers. In this case this particular Jewish tribe. We can see throughout the history of Christianity Christians then applied this to themselves so we get "Love thy Christian neighbor as thyself". As for the rest: racks, stonings and pears, oh my!

The difference between Leviticus 18:22 (I quoted) and Leviticus 20:13 (you quoted), is that the first is a rule for personal conduct (still applies), and the second is a warning of punishment (Jesus clarified how we should treat each other, then died so that we may live); it doesn't say that we must put the person to death, it says "they shall surely be put to death". "Death", in biblical terms, miens separation from God (= hell). That's no different than any other sin. Your confusion comes from not understanding the final sacrifice.

I take "they shall surely be put to death" to mean what it says. All over the OT lot's of people are actually put to death and rather violently I might add. Too bad God didn't inspire those writers of the Bible to instead say "they shall surely be separated from God". It would have saved a lot of people from a lot of misery. No confusion here. I understand the concept of the final sacrifice and that's why I'm not Christian.

Jesus died for our sins.....no one goes to hell....we all live happily ever after. arty

No one goes to hell? Someone tell Jesus.

We are not to engage in homosexual acts, nor punish those who do. :cheers:

Fine if you're not homosexual, but if you are there is no logical reason to not engage in them nor is there any reason why there should be a punishment in the first place.

When you learn about purgatory and Jesus's sacrifice, you will see that all people learn the error of their ways and all have been forgiven.

Unless you're a non-believer in which case you are tortured for all eternity. Funny how disbelief is made into a crime. Being reasonable is the worst thing you could do.

"You just quoted a verse to justify your hatred of gays in which Jesus upholds OT law."

That's a nice conspiracy, but I quoted that verse to show that Jesus did not abolish the old law, he came to fulfill it (a similar controversy exists over N/T adultery and divorce).

Yes...

Declining to participate in the deliberate death of another is an act of such fulfillment. That is why I do not support Capitol Punishment, nor abortion.

Umm, how do you fulfill the old law by not following it? For the record, I outright oppose capitol punishment, but abortion in certain circumstances is
permissible in my view. Don't see how you'd get either from the Bible since I found the opposite quite regularly.

I thought you were someone who based their views on "natural law", i.e. definition #2 which is derived from nature and reason (although a warped version of which I couldn't figure out the reasoning behind it). Instead, you base it on the Bible in which case I really don't see any point in going further since I dismiss the Bible just as much as the Qur'an, Avesta, etc.

 

[sissy-boy]

See, this is where we are differing and won't accept the other's argument as valid. I base my views on reason (natural) while yours are based on the Bible (revelation). Anyway in response to your post I see something very interesting. Jesus says that no one should stone anyone, but before that he said that they must. It was prefectly good then, but not now? Funny how you seem so certain of your interpretation. It only took you guys about 2000 years to figure out that killing people over religious matters is despicable. Of course, if you take Levitcus 19:18 in context the "children of thy neighbor" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" only applies to fellow believers. In this case this particular Jewish tribe. We can see throughout the history of Christianity Christians then applied this to themselves so we get "Love thy Christian neighbor as thyself". As for the rest: racks, stonings and pears, oh my!



I take "they shall surely be put to death" to mean what it says. All over the OT lot's of people are actually put to death and rather violently I might add. Too bad God didn't inspire those writers of the Bible to instead say "they shall surely be separated from God". It would have saved a lot of people from a lot of misery. No confusion here. I understand the concept of the final sacrifice and that's why I'm not Christian.



No one goes to hell? Someone tell Jesus.



Fine if you're not homosexual, but if you are there is no logical reason to not engage in them nor is there any reason why there should be a punishment in the first place.



Unless you're a non-believer in which case you are tortured for all eternity. Funny how disbelief is made into a crime. Being reasonable is the worst thing you could do.

"You just quoted a verse to justify your hatred of gays in which Jesus upholds OT law."


Yes...



Umm, how do you fulfill the old law by not following it? For the record, I outright oppose capitol punishment, but abortion in certain circumstances is
permissible in my view. Don't see how you'd get either from the Bible since I found the opposite quite regularly.

I thought you were someone who based their views on "natural law", i.e. definition #2 which is derived from nature and reason (although a warped version of which I couldn't figure out the reasoning behind it). Instead, you base it on the Bible in which case I really don't see any point in going further since I dismiss the Bible just as much as the Qur'an, Avesta, etc.

THANK YOU! For explaining this with such RATIONAL clarity!! It's just not what the radical christian mind is able to see for some reason.

The 'Love your christian neighbor as yourself' is SO right on!

 

[Columbusite]

Morons.org is GREAT!! I subscribe to their newsletter and get weekly stories. The editor is a great writer and debater and ALWAYS has something intelligent to add to the mix.

I really enjoy his passive agressive stance too -- he's HILARIOUS!!

I check the site pretty much everyday. When the editor has time to write they're always good pieces.

 

[Busta]

If you actually believe in your fairy-tale bibilical tripe, then tell me, why are homosexuals punished by christians by passing state laws to ban them from marrying? Is this not playing God??

A same-sex 'marriage ban is not punishment of the person , it is rejection of the behavior

 

[Busta]

Posted by Columbusite;
"I base my views on reason (natural).."
If that were true, then you would oppose same-sex 'marriage.

"..while yours are based on the Bible (revelation)".
That's the box you would like too keep me in, because that's the only way that you can justify your error. It simply is not true.
sissy-boy requested clarification of Scripture in #409. I started answering him in #417. Then you joined in in#425.
If you wish to keep the bible out of the conversation, then quit bringing it up.

"Jesus says that no one should stone anyone, but before that he said that they must."
Pending a quote of Jesus saying that stoning is permisable....
One was the unfulfilled law, the other was the act of fulfilling that law.
Your misunderstanding of this is evidence that you do not understand the final sacrifice.

"It was perfectly good then, but not now?"
Unfulfilled -v- fulfilling.

"It only took you guys about 2000 years to figure out that killing people over religious matters is despicable."
Like how a Deist or Atheist justifies killing an unborn child, yes, it's dispicable.
I'm only 27, not 2000, and I've always known that murder is wrong.
Everyone is corruptible, anyone can be missled. The sins of the past belong to those who committed them, not their children.

"Of course, if you take Leviticus 19:18 in context the "children of thy neighbor" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" only applies to fellow believers. In this case this particular Jewish tribe. We can see throughout the history of Christianity Christians then applied this to themselves so we get "Love thy Christian neighbor as thyself". As for the rest: racks, stonings and pears, oh my!"
Matthew 5:43-48;
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Conduct above and beyond the requirements of the law.

"Too bad God didn't inspire those writers of the Bible to instead say "they shall surely be separated from God"."
The problem that we have today is a language barrier. The word "death" is a close English translation. Students of the bible will do wisely to learn the ancient languages.

"No one goes to hell? Someone tell Jesus."
Hello? It is because of Jesus that no one is going to hell.
This is further evidence that you do not understand the final sacrifice.

"Fine if you're not homosexual, but if you are there is no logical reason to not engage in them nor is there any reason why there should be a punishment in the first place."
Romans 1:21-32
21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

"Unless you're a non-believer in which case you are tortured for all eternity."
That's the trick: In the end, all will believe.

"Umm, how do you fulfill the old law by not following it?"
Take Roe-v-Wade, for example.
Too outlaw abortion, all The People need to do is establish the unborn child's "Personhood" (section 9a.). That would be a fulfillment of Roe-v-Wade, while following it.

"Don't see how you'd get either from the Bible since I found the opposite quite regularly."
John 8:1-11 and Leviticus 19:18, for example.

"Instead, you base it on the Bible in which case I really don't see any point in going further since I dismiss the Bible just as much as the Qur'an, Avesta, etc."
Again, that's the box that you, sissy and duke need to put me in, because that is the only way you can justify your error.
If you don't want the bible in this conversation, then quit bringing it up.

 

[Busta]

Posted by Columbusite;
"The way you're comparing them is off. Marrying someone of the same race is a choice and anyone of any race can marry, so an interracial marriage ban is OK, right?"
I've already excluded that.
Again, no one is saying "homosexuals are already included in Marriage because they could marry other homosexuals; just not heterosexuals."

"Just for a reference this is from Loving v Virginia: "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
So marriage is a fundamental right..."
Again, "Since I have already established that ALL sexual orientations are currently included in Marriage, it is the ability to choose anyone as your partner which you must prove is a Fundamental Right, not Marriage itsself."
You have yet to show 'the ability to choose anyone as your partner' as a fundamental right.

"Don't have to. Let's say race was a choice. So what? Whether one chose to be gay, straight, asexual, is of no matter. They should be able to get equal access to marriage regardless."
It is precisely the ability too choose, too controle, which makes all the deferance.

"No I don't. The Constitution requires no such thing for equal application of the law."
The history of discrimination is required in order to substanchiate that such an oppressed group exists. No history = no proof of oppression; and you must prove oppression in order to show unequal treatment. If you can not show unequal treatment, you have no discriminatory claim.

"It's "sense". Spelling errors aside.."
Spelling is an interesting issue. Perhaps worthy of it's own thread. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Though, I could still post an inaccurate spelling for a like sounding word.

"..that is just my opinion and it does in fact allow for anyone to hold any religious belief, they just have to be an adult so that they can make an informed decision."
The problem is that my house is my place of worship, so you would have my children taken away from me until they were legal adults, at which time they would cease to be my responsibility anyway; so you would just be taking my children away from me.

"Parents telling their little children that they will be tortured forever if they don't believe what they believe is a form of mental abuse, pure and simple."
Those people relay irritate me!!
If they would just read the entirety of their own dogma, in stead of just the parts that they like, then they would see that NO ONE is going to hell. (Purgatory is a separate place, and is temporary [some believe that it is already gone]).

"Not all related people are denied I already covered that and I don't see anyone pushing for incestuous marriage (although aside from the ick factor and not allowing reproduction, it could possibly happen). Multi spouse groups were already covered. Insane people don't know what's going on, so that might explain why they aren't asking for it. Children can get married when they get older. Next!"
I've spoken of poligamy, so here is a bit on insestrious 'marriage: The argument about the biological hazards of consanguinity hold only until genetic science cures them, or at least minimizes them to the extent that they’re low risk.

Consider this analogue: the law currently allows individuals with the cystic fibrosis gene to marry and, indeed, does not interfere with their right to procreate. Incestuous relations should be permitted if the biological hazards can be similarly managed.

Right now, in the present, we have sperm banks, adoption, etc. for incestuous unions who want to avoid genetic troubles. And right now constitutional law tells us we can’t identify marriage with procreation, so a court cannot prohibit an incestuous union on the basis that future babies might have genetic defects.

Once SSM has been included within the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage can no longer be used to discriminate on the grounds of consanguinity. Marriage is no longer about generation since SSM couples cannot have children anyway (of their own), so to use consanguinity as grounds to refuse incestuous marriage is to rely on the traditional definition of marriage. AND if you are relying on the traditional definition of marriage to discriminate against incestuous couples, you are necessarily saying SSM is not the same thing as traditional marriage (you are back to discriminating against SSM); which it obviously isn’t, but that runs counter to the second reality that SSM equality advocates want to live in.

As a side note, SSM is an impossibility for heterosexual couples since it is addressed by the physiological fact of sex, which by definition means it is not the same type of human relationship as traditional marriage.

"Ick factor"? Carfull, now. That's what a "bigot" would say.

"Multi spouse groups were already covered."
Yup. No legal reason to deni polygamy.

Simple fact is, polygamists won't be able to use the argument for gay marriage in their case anymore than they could use an argument for straight marriage."
Their is no legal reason to deni polygamy. In fact, polygamy has a much stronger argument for legalization then does same-sex 'marriage. However, The People do not want it.

Like Duke said:
"Sorry, when that 1% has the Constitution on their side, that is it. End of story. That doesn't mean that every single time that the minority gets their way, it's just where Constitutional rights are involved they will succeed."
..and..
"No, Busta, the majority does not rule. In this case, the Constitution rules. One purpose of the Constitution is to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. Do you see how that makes sense? The majority ruled for a long time, back in the days of slavery and segregation."
So, according to that, if I can muster a meir 1% of people who wish to engage in polygamy, then it should be legal.

Polygamists would have to claim discrimination in order to proceed, but "Marriage, today, does not discriminate against any minority, so the 14th. Amendment doesn't apply because there are no grounds to base a discriminatory claim."

By opening the door for a choice, not a people, to be seen as discrimination, you are opening the door for unintended choices to follow.

If you want to argue for same-sex 'marriage, I see room for compromise. But you are playing with fire when you use the 14th.

 

[Columbusite]

Posted by Columbusite;
"I base my views on reason (natural).."
If that were true, then you would oppose same-sex 'marriage.

There's simply no rational reason. Homosexuality harms no one. Period.

"..while yours are based on the Bible (revelation)".

That's the box you would like too keep me in, because that's the only way that you can justify your error. It simply is not true.
sissy-boy requested clarification of Scripture in #409. I started answering him in #417. Then you joined in in#425.
If you wish to keep the bible out of the conversation, then quit bringing it up.

You're the one who claims to base you views of natural law on nature, reason and the Bible. You have yet to explain your views fully and if you would do that we could move on.

"Jesus says that no one should stone anyone, but before that he said that they must."

Pending a quote of Jesus saying that stoning is permisable....
One was the unfulfilled law, the other was the act of fulfilling that law.
Your misunderstanding of this is evidence that you do not understand the final sacrifice.

God commanded it in the OT and later came to Earth as a human...

"It only took you guys about 2000 years to figure out that killing people over religious matters is despicable."

Like how a Deist or Atheist justifies killing an unborn child, yes, it's dispicable.I'm only 27, not 2000, and I've always known that murder is wrong.Everyone is corruptible, anyone can be missled. The sins of the past belong to those who committed them, not their children.

I don't like abortion at all, but in some cases it is sadly the "best" outcome.
The sins of the past belong to their children if they lived in OT times.

"Of course, if you take Leviticus 19:18 in context the "children of thy neighbor" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" only applies to fellow believers. In this case this particular Jewish tribe. We can see throughout the history of Christianity Christians then applied this to themselves so we get "Love thy Christian neighbor as thyself". As for the rest: racks, stonings and pears, oh my!"

Matthew 5:43-48;
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Conduct above and beyond the requirements of the law.

This is Jesus speaking, correct? In which case he contradicts himself when he was having temper tantrums and ordering the deaths of entire cities in the OT. I like Jesus better than OT God, but since Jesus is that God in the flesh he's just a big hypocrite. Unless you cut out the OT from your Bible.

"Too bad God didn't inspire those writers of the Bible to instead say "they shall surely be separated from God"."

The problem that we have today is a language barrier. The word "death" is a close English translation. Students of the bible will do wisely to learn the ancient languages.

Too bad God didn't have the foresight to have divinely inspired translators.

"No one goes to hell? Someone tell Jesus."

Hello? It is because of Jesus that no one is going to hell.
This is further evidence that you do not understand the final sacrifice.

Someone needs to tell the Christians too.

"Fine if you're not homosexual, but if you are there is no logical reason to not engage in them nor is there any reason why there should be a punishment in the first place."
Romans 1:21-32
21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Not logical and I get a bonus: gays "deserve to die" ("worthy of death" in the KJV). Revelation is anything but logical, anything goes.

"Unless you're a non-believer in which case you are tortured for all eternity."

That's the trick: In the end, all will believe.

Yet another thing you might want to inform all those mislead Christians about.

"Umm, how do you fulfill the old law by not following it?"
Take Roe-v-Wade, for example.

Too outlaw abortion, all The People need to do is establish the unborn child's "Personhood" (section 9a.). That would be a fulfillment of Roe-v-Wade, while following it.

But I thought God's laws were everlasting. Guess I was wrong.

"Don't see how you'd get either from the Bible since I found the opposite quite regularly."

John 8:1-11 and Leviticus 19:18, for example.

I can find many more examples of God condoning the tearing up of "women with child" and all the people he had killed in his name in the OT.

"Instead, you base it on the Bible in which case I really don't see any point in going further since I dismiss the Bible just as much as the Qur'an, Avesta, etc."

Again, that's the box that you, sissy and duke need to put me in, because that is the only way you can justify your error.
If you don't want the bible in this conversation, then quit bringing it up.

Again, you're the one who bases your views on it partially or wholly. You can't follow those two contrary definitions of natural law. Either it is based on nature and reason or the Bible

 

[Columbusite]

Posted by Columbusite;
"The way you're comparing them is off."
I've already excluded that.
Again, no one is saying "homosexuals are already included in Marriage because they could marry other homosexuals; just not heterosexuals."

To use that comparison is no better than saying homosexuals can marry heterosexuals. In which case you could argue that we have interracial only marriages since blacks could marry whites and it is applied equally.

"Just for a reference this is from Loving v Virginia: "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
So marriage is a fundamental right..."

Again, "Since I have already established that ALL sexual orientations are currently included in Marriage, it is the ability to choose anyone as your partner which you must prove is a Fundamental Right, not Marriage itsself."
You have yet to show 'the ability to choose anyone as your partner' as a fundamental right.

You have yet to show why it's the governments business to meddle in who marries who..

"Don't have to. Let's say race was a choice. So what? Whether one chose to be gay, straight, asexual, is of no matter. They should be able to get equal access to marriage regardless."

It is precisely the ability too choose, too controle, which makes all the deferance.

We live in a free country and yet you're dictating the person I can marry based on my/their genitals. You've got to be joking.

"No I don't. The Constitution requires no such thing for equal application of the law."

The history of discrimination is required in order to substanchiate that such an oppressed group exists. No history = no proof of oppression; and you must prove oppression in order to show unequal treatment. If you can not show unequal treatment, you have no discriminatory claim.

Either the Constitution applies to all citizens or it doesn't.

"It's "sense". Spelling errors aside.."

Spelling is an interesting issue. Perhaps worthy of it's own thread. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Though, I could still post an inaccurate spelling for a like sounding word.

Actually read on that a while ago and it is a rather interesting phenomenon. I read through this just as fast as the rest of the post.

"..that is just my opinion and it does in fact allow for anyone to hold any religious belief, they just have to be an adult so that they can make an informed decision."

The problem is that my house is my place of worship, so you would have my children taken away from me until they were legal adults, at which time they would cease to be my responsibility anyway; so you would just be taking my children away from me.

You just wouldn't be able to indoctrinate your children with religion. Of course actually implementing such a thing would be pretty much impossible. Ideally, parents would allow their children the freedom to make up their own minds, but that's in a prefect world.

"Parents telling their little children that they will be tortured forever if they don't believe what they believe is a form of mental abuse, pure and simple."

Those people relay irritate me!!
If they would just read the entirety of their own dogma, in stead of just the parts that they like, then they would see that NO ONE is going to hell. (Purgatory is a separate place, and is temporary [some believe that it is already gone]).

Isn't it the Catholic church that says purgatory was gone, or was that limbo, or both? Now, do you believe no one is going to hell? Everyone is going to heaven? Even Hitler? Personally, I wouldn't count on the Bible anymore than any other revelation as to the answer of what comes after death. Taking an honest look, it seems that what makes us very uncomfortable may very well be the outcome.

"Not all related people are denied I already covered that and I don't see anyone pushing for incestuous marriage (although aside from the ick factor and not allowing reproduction, it could possibly happen). Multi spouse groups were already covered. Insane people don't know what's going on, so that might explain why they aren't asking for it. Children can get married when they get older. Next!"

Consider this analogue: the law currently allows individuals with the cystic fibrosis gene to marry and, indeed, does not interfere with their right to procreate. Incestuous relations should be permitted if the biological hazards can be similarly managed.

Right now, in the present, we have sperm banks, adoption, etc. for incestuous unions who want to avoid genetic troubles. And right now constitutional law tells us we can’t identify marriage with procreation, so a court cannot prohibit an incestuous union on the basis that future babies might have genetic defects.

Once SSM has been included within the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage can no longer be used to discriminate on the grounds of consanguinity. Marriage is no longer about generation since SSM couples cannot have children anyway (of their own), so to use consanguinity as grounds to refuse incestuous marriage is to rely on the traditional definition of marriage. AND if you are relying on the traditional definition of marriage to discriminate against incestuous couples, you are necessarily saying SSM is not the same thing as traditional marriage (you are back to discriminating against SSM); which it obviously isn’t, but that runs counter to the second reality that SSM equality advocates want to live in.

As a side note, SSM is an impossibility for heterosexual couples since it is addressed by the physiological fact of sex, which by definition means it is not the same type of human relationship as traditional marriage.

Umm, SSM couples can in fact have children of their own. I have a friend who knows a gay man who copulated with a female to have children. ...Yeah. Also , couples can just have a surrogate mother or a mother have a sprem donor, so they can have their own children.

"Ick factor"?

Carfull, now. That's what a "bigot" would say.

Not at all. I would expect an ick factor from heterosexuals to sex between a same sex couple and vice versa. It's what people do with that ick factor that can make them a bigot.

"Multi spouse groups were already covered."

Yup. No legal reason to deni polygamy.

There's really not and I wouldn't be surprised if someone else found that loophole I did. Unless I really was the 1st in which case: yay me!

Simple fact is, polygamists won't be able to use the argument for gay marriage in their case anymore than they could use an argument for straight marriage."

Their is no legal reason to deni polygamy. In fact, polygamy has a much stronger argument for legalization then does same-sex 'marriage. However, The People do not want it.

I could care less what the people want. I care about upholding our Constitution, even if there are outcomes I don't like. If I had kids I'd discourage them from polygamy and incest. That's my job as a parent, I don't need the government to do it for me.

Like Duke said:
"Sorry, when that 1% has the Constitution on their side, that is it. End of story. That doesn't mean that every single time that the minority gets their way, it's just where Constitutional rights are involved they will succeed."
..and..
"No, Busta, the majority does not rule. In this case, the Constitution rules. One purpose of the Constitution is to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. Do you see how that makes sense? The majority ruled for a long time, back in the days of slavery and segregation."

So, according to that, if I can muster a meir 1% of people who wish to engage in polygamy, then it should be legal.

Polygamists would have to claim discrimination in order to proceed, but "Marriage, today, does not discriminate against any minority, so the 14th. Amendment doesn't apply because there are no grounds to base a discriminatory claim."

By opening the door for a choice, not a people, to be seen as discrimination, you are opening the door for unintended choices to follow.

Even when a gay person is walking down the street they are still "being "gay. They aren't just gay when they are in the bedroom. It is a part of an identity and more than the choice to act on it and pursue a relationship with the same sex.

If you want to argue for same-sex 'marriage, I see room for compromise. But you are playing with fire when you use the 14th.

I really don't see why you'd be scared of polygamy becoming legal or incest. Both are not common and both are looked down upon and I don't see that changing. Where change might occur I'd see more acceptance toward polygamy than for incest which I just don't see changing, but not on a large scale. People already practice polygamy, bigamy, and incest in this country. I don't see it's being legal making it any more enticing. I'd also try arguing from a reason based standpoint, but I still have no idea what the hell you base your views on exactly. A weird mix of dogma and natural law derived from it, but that isn't nearly enough to go on. I could do so anyway, but like Thomas Paine said,

"Reasoning with one who has abandoned reason
is like giving medicine to a dead man"

 

[sissy-boy]

A same-sex 'marriage ban is not punishment of the person , it is rejection of the behavior

Yeah, right. How would YOU like it if suddenly your marriage was NULLIFIED?? Would you think of it as punishment? And if it IS 'rejection of behavior' why is it not done to persons who commit adultery or divorce? And since WHEN is it the job of the American government to put BIBLICAL hogwash and superstition into the STATE??

You're an intolerant bigot. THAT is a fact.

 

[Busta]

Heh, here's a new one: "Polyamorists";
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641431,00.html

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamorists
'Polyamory is the practice or lifestyle of being part of more than one long-term, intimate, and, often, sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved. Persons who consider themselves emotionally suited to such relationships may define themselves as polyamorous, often abbreviated to poly.

"Although the words are often treated as synonymous, 'polyamory' is not the same as 'open relationships'; a person may have more than one close emotional or sexual partner and yet not be "open" to others (polyfidelity), or may have an agreement to allow multiple partners but not form the long term emotional bonds with them which are defining within polyamory (eg swinging). The core value of polyamory ultimately might be said to be that the multiple relationships are intended to be taken seriously as relationships, rather than "ships passing in the night"."

 

[sissy-boy]

Heh, here's a new one: "Polyamorists";
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641431,00.html

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamorists
'Polyamory is the practice or lifestyle of being part of more than one long-term, intimate, and, often, sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved. Persons who consider themselves emotionally suited to such relationships may define themselves as polyamorous, often abbreviated to poly.

"Although the words are often treated as synonymous, 'polyamory' is not the same as 'open relationships'; a person may have more than one close emotional or sexual partner and yet not be "open" to others (polyfidelity), or may have an agreement to allow multiple partners but not form the long term emotional bonds with them which are defining within polyamory (eg swinging). The core value of polyamory ultimately might be said to be that the multiple relationships are intended to be taken seriously as relationships, rather than "ships passing in the night"."

Hardly new. In the 60's there were PLENTY of group marriages in and around the hundreds of communes that filled most large urban areas and the great northwest.

I personally see nothing wrong with it. I wouldn't choose to do it but I could care less if someone else did. But it could for sure cause an awful lot of legal hassles if property and money needed to be settled in a 'group divorce' haha!!

But that's what YOUR tax dollars are for!!

Group Marriage -- YAY!!

 

[Busta]

Hardly new. In the 60's there were PLENTY of group marriages in and around the hundreds of communes that filled most large urban areas and the great northwest.

I personally see nothing wrong with it. I wouldn't choose to do it but I could care less if someone else did. But it could for sure cause an awful lot of legal hassles if property and money needed to be settled in a 'group divorce' haha!!

But that's what YOUR tax dollars are for!!

Group Marriage -- YAY!!

Hmmm....I didn't know that.
Oh, and, as an Evil Conservative, I get all of my taxes back when I file.

It's true. Big Bro. hasn't kept any of my tax money for @ 4 years.

 

[Columbusite]

A same-sex 'marriage ban is not punishment of the person , it is rejection of the behavior

Yes it is. A gay person is still gay without a partner. Gay doesn't = behavior. Think please.

 

[sissy-boy]

Yes it is. A gay person is still gay without a partner. Gay doesn't = behavior. Think please.

Gay means that you're attracted to, and that you engage in, SEX with the same sex. Queer, homosexuality, WHATEVER.

it CAN mean many other things as well. But I don't know of a single queer ever who said they're gay but they don't have gay sex. What the heck are you talking about??

If you're referring to 'gay christians' or 'ex-gays', you're wrong. Ex-gays have more gay sex than ALL of us, they just HIDE it better!

hahah!!

Show me an 'ex-gay' that says he hasn't had sex with another man and I'll show you either a LIAR, or an inCREDIBLY miserable and abused person.

 

[Busta]

Posted by Columbusite;
"There's simply no rational reason. Homosexuality harms no one. Period."
Like I've been saying, it's no better then what is found in the animal kingdom. It's a manifestation of a "base mind".
Our design dictates that we overcome the inherent flaws and limitations of nature. Homosexuality is one such flaw and limitation. It is something to be overcome, not surrendered to.

"You're the one who claims to base you views of natural law on nature, reason and the Bible. You have yet to explain your views fully and if you would do that we could move on."
See posts #1 and #43, for starters.

"God commanded it in the OT and later came to Earth as a human..."
Yup, so that the law and proficy would be fulfilled.

Regarding Matthew 5:43-48;
"This is Jesus speaking, correct? In which case he contradicts himself when he was having temper tantrums and ordering the deaths of entire cities in the OT. I like Jesus better than OT God, but since Jesus is that God in the flesh he's just a big hypocrite. Unless you cut out the OT from your Bible."
Do you have a particular example of such an ordering that you would like to explore?
There is no contradiction here. Jesus had not yet made the final sacrifice for sin; that is why there were sacrifices and stonings BEFORE he payed the price for all sin, and NO sacrifices or stonings after.

Feel free to go off on the Church at this point. Chances are I'll agree with you.

"Too bad God didn't have the foresight to have divinely inspired translators."
As I said, Death = separation from God. Physical death is of no consequence.

Busta:
"Hello? It is because of Jesus that no one is going to hell.
This is further evidence that you do not understand the final sacrifice."
Columbusite:
"Someone needs to tell the Christians too."
Ya, no s#!t. I've been screaming it for years and I'm always summarily written off. No Christian has been able to refute me, though.

Regarding Romans 1:21-32:
"Not logical and I get a bonus: gays "deserve to die" ("worthy of death" in the KJV). Revelation is anything but logical, anything goes."
What the....
Since when is information that is newly disclosed, especially surprising or valuable information, or a surprisingly good or valuable experience illogical?

Busta:
"That's the trick: In the end, all will believe."
Columbusite:
"Yet another thing you might want to inform all those mislead Christians about."
Yup, as above.

"But I thought God's laws were everlasting. Guess I was wrong."
Don't know what you are talking about.
In my example with roe-v-wade, abortion could be outlawed by fulfilling the requirements in section 9a. The ruling would not be overturned or over ruled in any way.

So also is the law of God. When one has homosexual sex, that person is "worthy of death", but since Jesus already payed that persons debt for sin, said person is not stoned or put to death.

"I can find many more examples of God condoning the tearing up of "women with child" and all the people he had killed in his name in the OT."
Like in Hosea 10:13-14;
"13 You have plowed iniquity, you have reaped injustice, you have eaten the fruit of lies. Because you have trusted in your chariots and in the multitude of your warriors,
14 therefore the tumult of war shall arise among your people, and all your fortresses shall be destroyed, as Shalman destroyed Beth-ar'bel on the day."of battle; mothers were dashed in pieces with their children.
Basically, these people trusted in their own ways, and turned away from God.
Remember, this was before the final sacrifice for sin. Jesus's teachings showed us how to treat others, now that the debt has been payed.

"Again, you're the one who bases your views on it partially or wholly. You can't follow those two contrary definitions of natural law. Either it is based on nature and reason or the Bible"
Nature, reason, bible....all are equal.
This is a reading of just the raw meaning of the first 14 the letters of Genesis.
These are the words, in the beginning, God created:
"The primary distinction between inside and outside initiates everything, by expressing a single choice, and all of it's internal and external reflections. The primary distinction between breathing out, and breathing in, frames a single choice among a plenum of all choices."