| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2005 04:46:44 PM · #776 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Since some people really can't tell the difference, let me be explicit so that no one may ever falsely accuse me again.
NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT LEGALIZATION OF RAPING KIDS AND HORSES IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE!
IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? |
Do you believe that horses can consent to and enter legally binding contracts? |
At present, no, I don't believe so. But for the future? Well, I can't guarantee what the legislature will do in the future, anymore than the folks 50 years ago could.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 16:47:47. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:53:43 PM · #777 |
Originally posted by RonB:
What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old (male or female), or a horse (but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn). |
Originally posted by RonB:
My prediction is a logical extension of the progressive expansion of sociological acceptance of sexual practices once unacceptable... It may seem to be an exaggeration NOW, but then, 35 years ago it would have been seen as an exaggeration if one were to predict that 35 years hence, sodomy would be legal. But...here we are. |
Originally posted by RonB:
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT LEGALIZATION OF RAPING KIDS AND HORSES IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE!
IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? |
Not to me. It looks like a complete reversal of your earlier statements. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:00:56 PM · #778 |
Originally posted by frisca:
It was repugnant for you to compare the loving relationships of people from different racial or cultural backgrounds or people of the same sex with the abuse of animals or sex with children (who by law and by any standard applied in history cannot consent to sex). |
For the sake of clarification, what is your definition of "child"? Or what do you accept as the social, legal, or otherwise definition of "child"? Does "childhood" end at a specific age? If so, what age is that? Does it end at a particular stage of development? If so, what stage is that? Without agreement on what a "child" is, the accusations against me are just based on "their" interpretation of what a "child" is? |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:03:06 PM · #779 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Since some people really can't tell the difference, let me be explicit so that no one may ever falsely accuse me again.
NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT LEGALIZATION OF RAPING KIDS AND HORSES IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE!
IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? |
Do you believe that horses can consent to and enter legally binding contracts? |
I would feel fully justified in ignoring this comment. It provides no logical value, but rather only to flame a debator.
I do agree with you Ron on one point. Gay marriage is a moral desensitizer that will increase the potential for other immoral acts. The majority will continue down this path and what use to be illogical to these folks will eventually be utterly logical. I cannot factually state that it will be in the areas you have argued AND when I READ your post I understood the implications you were making.
The simple point is that as long as WE continue to fight for our rights and those rights are without moral standing this debate will rage on.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:11:56 PM · #780 |
since we're talking about government control of individual rights and all:
read this
my crazy state senator tried to introduce legislation that would have made it a CRIME to have a child out of wedlock.
furthermore, anyone who wanted to become pregnant through artificial means (including in vitro fertilization for happily married couples) would have to file for a "gestational certificate" and would have to apply to be a parent just like potential adoptive parents do.
she has since withdrawn her support of this legislation. probably because it was CRAZY.
it's this kind of thing that drives me insane. what gives the state the ability to determine who would be a good parent and who wouldn't? yes, plenty of people who probably shouldn't have kids do have them, but that's because it's THEIR choice.
so, by extension, what gives the state the ability to determine who i should marry? |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:14:22 PM · #781 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I do agree with you Ron on one point. Gay marriage is a moral desensitizer that will increase the potential for other immoral acts. |
Immoral to whom.......YOU... Just because you and RonB think acts of this nature are immoral does not necessarily make it so. It is rather sad that you are so blinded by your homophobic perspective that you fail to comprehend that all these individuals are seeking are the very same rights you so strongly defend. For your sake, I can only hope that you never have homosexual son or daughter.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:18:48 PM · #782 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I do agree with you Ron on one point. Gay marriage is a moral desensitizer that will increase the potential for other immoral acts. |
Immoral to whom.......YOU... Just because you and RonB think acts of this nature are immoral does not necessarily make it so. It is rather sad that you are so blinded by your homophobic perspective that you fail to comprehend that all these individuals are seeking are the very same rights you so strongly defend. For your sake, I can only hope that you never have homosexual son or daughter.
Ray |
I have already stated earlier in this thread that a union outside of marriage is appropriate. This being said, I still disagree with homosexuality, but not because I "think" more because of what God says. I am SORRY you cannot seem to comprehend the Truth given to us in the Word of God. I am SORRY you question the validity of its message, but as I have stated before it is will out questionabilty the Truth.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:19:10 PM · #783 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
For your sake, I can only hope that you never have homosexual son or daughter. |
i hope so too, but more for the son/daughter's sake than the parents. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:21:52 PM · #784 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
For your sake, I can only hope that you never have homosexual son or daughter. |
i hope so too, but more for the son/daughter's sake than the parents. |
When that trial is upon me it will be passed with the same love I would offer a heterosexual child. My love would be no different between the two, nor would my acceptance as a parent.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:22:48 PM · #785 |
Originally posted by RonB:
At present, no, I don't believe so. But for the future? Well, I can't guarantee what the legislature will do in the future, anymore than the folks 50 years ago could. |
So perhaps you should leave that argument for the legislature 50 years from now and focus on the debate today. Your "slippery slope" arguments do not necessarily follow. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:23:07 PM · #786 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I do agree with you Ron on one point. Gay marriage is a moral desensitizer that will increase the potential for other immoral acts. |
Immoral to whom.......YOU... Just because you and RonB think acts of this nature are immoral does not necessarily make it so. It is rather sad that you are so blinded by your homophobic perspective that you fail to comprehend that all these individuals are seeking are the very same rights you so strongly defend. For your sake, I can only hope that you never have homosexual son or daughter.
Ray |
Why do you insist on jumping to conclusions, Ray? Do you think that it logically follows that one cannot "hate the sin" but "love the sinner"?
As it so happens, I have a sister-in-law who is a lesbian, living in a committed relationship with her partner.
AND I have an unmarried daughter living with her boyfriend.
I love them both, AND I love their significant others as well, but I STILL contend that all of them are engaging in immoral behaviour, and I absolutely disapprove of it.
But what is a father/brother-in-law to do? I am not called to approve, only to love. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:29:40 PM · #787 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I love them both, AND I love their significant others as well, but I STILL contend that all of them are engaging in immoral behaviour, and I absolutely disapprove of it. |
so...just asking. what would you do if it became illegal for your daughter and her boyfriend to live together, but they still did? |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:35:12 PM · #788 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Gay marriage is a moral desensitizer that will increase the potential for other immoral acts. |
Hoo, boy! Yep, that's the big assumption. The same one that sparked outrage when ladies' hem lines rose above their ankles. The same premise that resulted in Prohibition, laws against kissing in public, book burning, and pickets against the Beatles. So the right thing to do is ban anything that could possibly lead to increased immorality? Hey, whaddya' know... that's been tried already:
"...the people accepted the Taliban as unearthly avengers fighting a righteous battle to save the country from immoralty. Female employment and education was restricted or banned. Women had to stay at home. Women who did leave the house had to be accompanied by a male relative and cover themselves with a burqa. Non-religious music, TV and movies were all banned. Multi-colored signs were prohibited. White socks were forbidden (a sexual lure). Children were forbidden to fly kites, play chess or play with the pigeons since those activities could distract them from their religious studies. Men were required to wear beards or face prison until their shaven whiskers grow back. Paper bags were banned since the paper might have been recycled from old Korans and lower level windows were blackened to prevent males from inadvertently catching women in compromising states. In order to guarantee that men and women observed the new rules, the Taliban employed a moral police force (Agents for the Preservation of Virtue and Elimination of Vice) to search for violators.
Oh yeah, THAT worked out great! Restricting the freedoms of people whose acts do not affect you or harm others is a cure worse than the disease. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:35:41 PM · #789 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Why do you insist on jumping to conclusions, Ray? Do you think that it logically follows that one cannot "hate the sin" but "love the sinner"?
As it so happens, I have a sister-in-law who is a lesbian, living in a committed relationship with her partner.
AND I have an unmarried daughter living with her boyfriend.
I love them both, AND I love their significant others as well, but I STILL contend that all of them are engaging in immoral behaviour, and I absolutely disapprove of it.
But what is a father/brother-in-law to do? I am not called to approve, only to love. |
I can't help but think what a shame it is for your daughter( and your sister in law) to feel that her father feels she is sinful. I wonder how she feels? I Tour penultimate sentence says a lot. You obviously feel you would like to be able to do something about it but can't.I'm not disputing your love for the people imvolved but pity you cannot just take pleasure in the fact they love and are loved and are happy. Both my children have been in live-in relationships but they always had our respect for their decisions and our wholehearted support. There was never any feeling we disapproved of their arrangements and therefore no invisible barriers between us or areas of discussion to be avoided. Out of interest do you let them sleep together in your home? Or do you stick to your principles ? No condemnation just regret!
P
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:36:37 PM · #790 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
This being said, I still disagree with homosexuality, but not because I "think" more because of what God says. I am SORRY you cannot seem to comprehend the Truth given to us in the Word of God. I am SORRY you question the validity of its message, but as I have stated before it is will out questionabilty the Truth. |
My God may not be the same you have.....perhaps YOU fail to comprehend that. Hence it would logically follow that what you perceive as the truth is nothing more than mere conjecture from my perspective.
Even the words of your GOD have been the subject of debate and countless debates over the millenium, so what makes you think that what you understand as being the truth today is indeed factual.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:41:33 PM · #791 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
For your sake, I can only hope that you never have homosexual son or daughter. |
i hope so too, but more for the son/daughter's sake than the parents. |
When that trial is upon me it will be passed with the same love I would offer a heterosexual child. My love would be no different between the two, nor would my acceptance as a parent. |
Just out of curiousity... what will your God say about this child... or will that not be an issue since the truth may have been altered to accomodate you ... |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:44:00 PM · #792 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I am SORRY you cannot seem to comprehend the Truth given to us in the Word of God. I am SORRY you question the validity of its message, but as I have stated before it is will out questionabilty the Truth. |
No it is not without question the Truth, else we would not be having this debate! It is the truth YOU believe in. I tolerate you having your beliefs and you should have respect for others'.
P
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:47:41 PM · #793 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I am SORRY you cannot seem to comprehend the Truth given to us in the Word of God. I am SORRY you question the validity of its message, but as I have stated before it is will out questionabilty the Truth. |
No it is not without question the Truth, else we would not be having this debate! It is the truth YOU believe in. I tolerate you having your beliefs and you should have respect for others'.
P |
I absolutely have that respect for others and have not stated anywhere otherwise. It does not change the fact that if I choose today to stop believing in it as you do and many others that it would not be the Truth. The great thing about what I believe in is it does not require that I believe in it for it to exist as a factual basis. I have utter respect for your ability to not believe what I believe.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:51:07 PM · #794 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by RonB:
I love them both, AND I love their significant others as well, but I STILL contend that all of them are engaging in immoral behaviour, and I absolutely disapprove of it. |
so...just asking. what would you do if it became illegal for your daughter and her boyfriend to live together, but they still did? |
The same thing that I'm doing now. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:52:26 PM · #795 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
For your sake, I can only hope that you never have homosexual son or daughter. |
i hope so too, but more for the son/daughter's sake than the parents. |
When that trial is upon me it will be passed with the same love I would offer a heterosexual child. My love would be no different between the two, nor would my acceptance as a parent. |
Just out of curiousity... what will your God say about this child... or will that not be an issue since the truth may have been altered to accomodate you ... |
I cannot speak for God and nor have I attempted to in this thread or any other of its likes. Are we reading the same book? If I have mis-read the Bible in some way please feel free to point it out to me.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:53:27 PM · #796 |
To have weathered the storms of "You're going straight to Hell" from immediate relatives, as well as having myself and my lover being completely thrown out of family holiday dinners (I'm talking an ugly scene at the dinner table, not beforehand), I can honestly say that there is NOTHING that hurts more than having a loved one tell you that "they love you anyway". I'd rather they go jump off a cliff actually, and save me the heartache. I'm sorry, but I think that's bullsh8t. You love me for who I am or you don't. It's not a choice I was born with - trust me if it was, I wouldn't have chosen it! LOL
Sorry, brief interjection once again from the sideseats... Couldn't help myself! LOL Please continue! |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:55:09 PM · #797 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I am SORRY you cannot seem to comprehend the Truth given to us in the Word of God. ...as I have stated before it is will out questionabilty the Truth. |
Truth without proof is faith, not fact. The Bible is the word of PEOPLE, at best dictated by God, and written thousands (or millions) of years AFTER civilization began. Copies of a story or characters within the story cannot be used as proof that the story itself is true. You may choose to believe, and that's fine, but consider this: no matter what your religion (Christian, Muslim, Hindu...), most of the world doesn't believe you and never has. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:55:45 PM · #798 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I do agree with you Ron on one point. Gay marriage is a moral desensitizer that will increase the potential for other immoral acts. The majority will continue down this path and what use to be illogical to these folks will eventually be utterly logical. I cannot factually state that it will be in the areas you have argued AND when I READ your post I understood the implications you were making.
The simple point is that as long as WE continue to fight for our rights and those rights are without moral standing this debate will rage on. |
Will all due respect, here are some things that I consider moral desensitizers: Much of what's on television, Strip Clubs, lots of Rap, Country & Pop Music, Paris Hilton, Pornography...etc. Relatively speaking, these socially accepted cultural icons are more dangerous to our nation's moral fiber than two people who love each other forming a personal union.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:56:37 PM · #799 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I do agree with you Ron on one point. Gay marriage is a moral desensitizer that will increase the potential for other immoral acts. The majority will continue down this path and what use to be illogical to these folks will eventually be utterly logical. I cannot factually state that it will be in the areas you have argued AND when I READ your post I understood the implications you were making.
The simple point is that as long as WE continue to fight for our rights and those rights are without moral standing this debate will rage on. |
Will all due respect, here are some things that I consider moral desensitizers: Much of what's on television, Strip Clubs, lots of Rap, Country & Pop Music, Paris Hilton, Pornography...etc. Relatively speaking, these socially accepted cultural icons are more dangerous to our nation's moral fiber than two people who love each other forming a personal union. |
Absolutely agree with you!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:58:49 PM · #800 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I am SORRY you cannot seem to comprehend the Truth given to us in the Word of God. ...as I have stated before it is will out questionabilty the Truth. |
Truth without proof is faith, not fact. The Bible is the word of PEOPLE, at best dictated by God, and written thousands (or millions) of years AFTER civilization began. Copies of a story or characters within the story cannot be used as proof that the story itself is true. You may choose to believe, and that's fine, but consider this: no matter what your religion (Christian, Muslim, Hindu...), most of the world doesn't believe you and never has. |
I plan on responding to this (placeholder). I have some material at home that specifically addresses this and will have to find it.
|
|
