| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2005 10:31:57 PM · #851 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Does the Bible say anything about necrophilia, btw? |
Isaiah 37:36 "Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses."
Now if I woke up dead (I hate it when that happens) and went home to my spouse for a little fun... wouldn't that be necrophilia? ;-) |
On your wife's part, certainly. Not on yours...
But you've raised an interesting question; given that the Bible has told us it's possible to wake up and find yourself dead, and presuming for the sake of argument that the Bible DOES have a proscription against necrophilia, and further presuming that two dead people (preferably of opposite sexes to avoid homerotic complcations) wake up and find themselves fatally attracted (pun intended) to each other, would THIS be necrophila?
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:32:37 PM · #852 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
how'd you like to be the vet intern on call that night? |
ROFL! "Whoa easy girl. What's the matter, Whore Admiral?" |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:33:14 PM · #853 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Does the Bible say anything about necrophilia, btw? |
Isaiah 37:36 "Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses."
Now if I woke up dead (I hate it when that happens) and went home to my spouse for a little fun... wouldn't that be necrophilia? ;-) |
You can get home when you're dead? Holy cow, what'd you do to make that happen?! :D |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:34:59 PM · #854 |
| I think I'm going to go read this bible. I'd love to be able to learn how people live 600 years, watch herbivores turn into carnivores, and wake up when I'm dead. No wonder I've been having at hard time at school! |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:36:12 PM · #855 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Philip Roth's great novel "Portnoy's Complaint" had a very controversial scene in it describing autoerotic behavior involving a warmed-up slab of liver. Liver being "dead meat", does that qualify as "necrophilia"? And if not, why not?
Enquiring minds need to know.
Robt. |
If not necrophilia, definitely nutriphilia. Either way, I think there should be a constitutional ban on having sex with liver. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:38:52 PM · #856 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
If not necrophilia, definitely nutriphilia. Either way, I think there should be a constitutional ban on having sex with liver. |
Well, the anti-necrophilia camp says it's immoral to have sex with a "deader", and you want to ban sex with a "liver", so...
Drum roll... The end of sex!
Dang, I set that one up sweet didn't I? jejejeâ„¢
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:41:52 PM · #857 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
presuming that two dead people (preferably of opposite sexes to avoid homerotic complcations) wake up and find themselves fatally attracted (pun intended) to each other, would THIS be necrophila? |
I'm not sure opposite sexes would matter in this case. Two stiffs would almost certainly be homoerotic. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:42:14 PM · #858 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
If not necrophilia, definitely nutriphilia. Either way, I think there should be a constitutional ban on having sex with liver. |
Well, the anti-necrophilia camp says it's immoral to have sex with a "deader", and you want to ban sex with a "liver", so...
Drum roll... The end of sex!
Dang, I set that one up sweet didn't I? jejejeâ„¢
Robt. |
ROTFLMO! That was awesome...and what a setup! You hooked me right in on that one.
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm not sure opposite sexes would matter in this case. Two stiffs would almost certainly be homoerotic. |
This is hilarious too, Shannon. Thanks all, for the laughter.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 22:45:40. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:44:21 PM · #859 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
presuming that two dead people (preferably of opposite sexes to avoid homerotic complcations) wake up and find themselves fatally attracted (pun intended) to each other, would THIS be necrophila? |
I'm not sure opposite sexes would matter in this case. Two stiffs would almost certainly be homoerotic. |
ROTFLMAO
Oh man, you and bear have made my night. Thanks! |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:46:52 PM · #860 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm not sure opposite sexes would matter in this case. Two stiffs would almost certainly be homoerotic. |
BOOOOOOOOOO!
R. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:50:14 PM · #861 |
Originally posted by RonB:
SO, a logical expansion of my original statement to avoid ( apparently confusing ) references to wording in the prior statement would be as follows:
"Yeah. The thought that just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage is something to think about. What's more frightening than that thought 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 )." |
You’re comparison is inconsistent. You now say that you said that it is a frightening thought that only 35 years ago it was still illegal in the United States to enter into what some people considered an inappropriate arrangement (interracial marriage), but then you turn around and say that it is more frightening that in 40 years it won’t be illegal in the United States to enter into what a vast majority of people consider to be an inappropriate arrangement (pedophilia and bestiality).
The whole subject is gay marriage and the right of consenting adults to enter into a mutual contract. The comparison was that interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the United States, but that has changed and it is now become legally acceptable. The subject is that it is currently unlawful for two consent adults of the same sex to enter into a civil union (marriage). You projection is that, if homosexual marriage is made legal in this era, that bestiality and pedophilia might become legal in a future era. You are arguing against a “slippery slope” of civil freedoms. Interracial marriage is a civil freedom gained in the past, homosexual civil unions could become a civil freedom in this day and age, and, according to you, in the future, if homosexual civil unions become legal, bestiality and pedophilia may become civil freedoms.
You’ve essentially turned around and said that it’s “frightening” that people did not have a particular civil freedom in the past but more “frightening” that people might have a particular set of civil freedoms in the future. Your argument is inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:52:10 PM · #862 |
Thanks, Eric. That is just what I was about to do, but you saved me the trouble. The analogy was begun and RonB carried it forward and made the assertions that I have been referring to respecting children and animals.
So, in summary -- you didn't say it directly, but you adopted someone else's statement of it as part of your analogy. I stand by my post and my statements of your messages.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. 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:
not ONCE in ANY of my posts have I referred to interracial marriage even though YOU say that I said it. |
Right here ron, you are referencing my quote. right here YOU, yes, YOU ron, are making a comparison and equating a+b=c
A (interracial marriage 35 years ago became legal)
+
B (gay marriage, going on today, and legal in Massachusetts)
=
C (legalized pedophilia in the future)
here is the quote again, if you want to read it:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. 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 ). |
|
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:54:02 PM · #863 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
SO, a logical expansion of my original statement to avoid ( apparently confusing ) references to wording in the prior statement would be as follows... |
You’ve essentially turned around and said that it’s “frightening” that people did not have a particular civil freedom in the past but more “frightening” that people might have a particular set of civil freedoms in the future. Your argument is inconsistent. |
Bingo! That's exactly what I was alluding to earlier when I commented to Ron's latest elaboration/obfuscation (take your pick). It's simply remarkable how much circular reasoning is being floated around here.
R.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 22:54:17. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:58:17 PM · #864 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by RonB:
I never felt that interracial marriage was about sex. |
but, but... whatever happened to "once you go black, ...." ?
now i feel all disillusioned inside. |
However, homosexual marriage IS about sex..at least that seems to be the implication by RonB's latest statement. I'm sure he's ready in the wings to tell me how I am wrong to once again draw the logical conclusion from his words and trailing off ellipsis... (that's the 3 dots that follow like this...)
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 12:15:22.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 11:01:32 PM · #865 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by RonB:
I never felt that interracial marriage was about sex. |
but, but... whatever happened to "once you go black, ...." ?
now i feel all disillusioned inside. |
However, homosexual marriage IS about sex..at least that seems to be the implication by RonB's latest statement. I'm sure he's ready in the wings to tell me how I am wrong to once again draw the logical conclusion from his words and trailing off ellipse... (that's the 3 dots that follow like this...) |
I don't see RonB using the ellipsis (not "elipse", btw, which is a class of curved line); the only ellipsis I see is Muckpond's part of the quote...
R. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 01:09:55 AM · #866 |
In all fairness to RonB (and I can't believe I'm doing this because I almost never agree with him, and don't agree with his sentiments in this thread either), I do think everyone is reading into his statement a connection that he didn't intend to make (that interracial marriage becoming legal would lead in the future to bestiality and pedophilia becoming legal). He is, however, making that connection between same-sex marriage and bestiality/pedophilia. I think he actually did imply that it was not a good thing that it took so long for interracial marriage to be accepted and acquire legal status in the U.S. Correct me if I'm wrong, Ron.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 02:05:26 AM · #867 |
How does a dead person consent to sex?
So, necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia are unrelated issues -- we are talking about contractual relationships between consenting adults -- and and mention here serves only to distract and inflame ... |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:09:54 AM · #868 |
No one seems to object to the concept of same sex civil union, giving the same civil rights as is the case for mixed sex unions. Anti-gay marriage combatants Ron B and res0m50r have both said they would have no problem with this.
The issue appears to be what to call the civil union (!! - a rose by any other name). And presumably whether any religious content could be included in the service. Both are easily overcome.
The Texan amendment prohibits any form of union, including same sex civil unions of the type described here. I would be interested to know if this is objectionable to those who accept the idea of same sex civil unions but generally consider homosexuality to be objectionable on religious grounds.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:24:36 AM · #869 |
You are right, Rob. I apologise for making that connection, RonB.
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by RonB:
I never felt that interracial marriage was about sex. |
but, but... whatever happened to "once you go black, ...." ?
now i feel all disillusioned inside. |
However, homosexual marriage IS about sex..at least that seems to be the implication by RonB's latest statement. I'm sure he's ready in the wings to tell me how I am wrong to once again draw the logical conclusion from his words and trailing off ellipse... (that's the 3 dots that follow like this...) |
I don't see RonB using the ellipsis (not "elipse", btw, which is a class of curved line); the only ellipsis I see is Muckpond's part of the quote...
R. |
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 07:18:16 AM · #870 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I'm sure he's ready in the wings to tell me how I am wrong to once again draw the logical conclusion from his words and trailing off ellipse... (that's the 3 dots that follow like this...) |
yup... my "..." was to visually indicate my disillusionment. :)
i suppose i use the ellipse too often... |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 07:45:08 AM · #871 |
I'm not gay, my kids aren't, but I have some friends who are...they don't bother me, I don't bother them.... we live in Texas. They both work, have health care, are partners in buying a house, they can legally have a will and leave everything they own to the partner if they die... however, if 2/3 of the voters amend the Texas constitution then they can move to California or back East.... and I will miss them.(This amendment may be contested, wasting more of my taxpayer money, so stay tuned for further details.)
Proud to be Texan, where we do what we think is right, regardless of what people back East, or California, or France think.... (granted sometimes we are wrong, which sometimes we eventually discover and correct, but remember, probably 60-70% of the people who live in Texas are not Texan...they are people who moved here because of descent weather, jobs, no State income tax, and then they complain about the heat, low pay, high property taxes, the traffic, and Texans.......
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 07:55:44 AM · #872 |
Originally posted by HornOUBet:
however, if 2/3 of the voters amend the Texas constitution then they can move to California or back East.... and I will miss them. |
semantics question:
are you saying they WILL move away because of the results of the vote. or are you saying that they CAN move away to try and find somewhere with a more open political climate?
if you're saying they WILL, then that's sad and you should immediately see the negative effects of this kind of vote.
if you're saying they CAN because it's up to them to find someplace that welcomes them, then that's even worse. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 10:04:48 AM · #873 |
Originally posted by HornOUBet:
I'm not gay, my kids aren't, but I have some friends who are...they don't bother me, I don't bother them.... we live in Texas. They both work, have health care, are partners in buying a house, they can legally have a will and leave everything they own to the partner if they die... however, if 2/3 of the voters amend the Texas constitution then they can move to California or back East.... and I will miss them.(This amendment may be contested, wasting more of my taxpayer money, so stay tuned for further details.)
Proud to be Texan, where we do what we think is right, regardless of what people back East, or California, or France think.... (granted sometimes we are wrong, which sometimes we eventually discover and correct, but remember, probably 60-70% of the people who live in Texas are not Texan...they are people who moved here because of descent weather, jobs, no State income tax, and then they complain about the heat, low pay, high property taxes, the traffic, and Texans....... |
What does France have to do with this? They are NOT one of the countries that have legalized gay marriage. They do recognize same sex civil unions though. Anyways, let me guess, you just don't like France?
Ahh yes, and only people born and raised are Texan. Never mind someone who may have come there for whatever reason and may proudly (or not) call it home. Since they are from the outside, they are automatically NOT Texan. I suppose that makes anyone who moves somewhere else someone with no identity since they are not from there. Oh well.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 10:06:29. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 10:22:22 AM · #874 |
| So...I'm confused...is George Bush Texan or not? And do Texans care what he says? |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 10:27:56 AM · #875 |
| Is being offended a choice? |
|
