Page 27 of 120 FirstFirst ... 1725262728293777 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 1200

Thread: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

  1. #261
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,923

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    You can call it a slippery slope logical fallacy all you want, but in LAW it has legs.
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it's possible for a slippery slope to actually be one.
    Why limit the redefinition of "marriage" to only two people? Why not to "throuples"? Why shouldn't polyamorous relationships be legal?

    Here is a an opinion piece at WaPo by an estate attorney who is arguing for "wedleases" rather than wedlock: A high divorce rate means it’s time to try ‘wedleases’ - The Washington Post

    A National Review article discusses new terms such as "throuples" and defines "monogamish."
    Redefine Marriage, Debase Language? | National Review Online

    Ryan Anderson goes on to argue:

    The breakdown of the marriage culture since the 1960s made it possible in this generation to consider redefining marriage in the law to exclude sexual complementarity. But if the law redefines marriage to say the male-female aspect is arbitrary, what principle will be left to retain monogamy, or sexual exclusivity, or the expectation of permanency?

    What these new words and redefinitions have in common is that they make marriage primarily about adult desire, primarily an intense emotional relationship between (or among) consenting adults, regardless of size or shape. And why should relationships among consenting adults be exclusive? Or permanent?

    Here's the New York Magazine article that introduced "throuple": The Sex Issue - A Long Island City Throuple in the Gay Porn Industry -- New York Magazine

  2. #262
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Now, some have attempted the rather puerile assertion that sodomy refers strictly to "homosexual rape," ostensibly no doubt to be able later to assert that for other than cases of rape that homosexual sex is perfectly fine and normal. This is a very simple thing to refute inasmuch as we know the intent of the men of the city was to have sex with the men who had come to rescue Lot. That they were willing to do it forcibly I think goes without question; however, it would be difficult to refute that they would have relented if they'd found willing partners. They were driven strictly by their peculiar sexual desires, desires the bible calls abominable, which Leviticus 13 and Leviticus 20 corroborate.
    No, you are incorrect. The story about Sodom and Gommorah was about homosexual rape as I showed. As far as Leviticus, here is what those passages really meant:

    Here is my treatment on the two Leviticus passages:

    Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
    Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


    There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.

    The section of the Torah where these passages were taken refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean.

    Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.

    Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
    "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.

    So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. This eliminates any punishment. Thirdly, only anal sex, probably in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.

    Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #263
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    < Heavy sigh > Little did I know I'd actually see the homosexual rape argument this soon. See my post #258 above.
    Saw it. It does nothing to refute what I said.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #264
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:15 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,561

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    oh for Pete's sakes:

    Sodomy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    sodomy legal definition of sodomy. sodomy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

    sodomy legal definition of sodomy. sodomy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


    How many sources do I need to post?

    Screw the "biblical" interpretations. The bible can justify killing thousands of innocent children.

    Our laws are not written around the biblical interpretations of words from evangelical nitwits.


    If sodomy is forced on someone it's rape.

    Otherwise all married, unmarried, consenting adult heterosexual couples engage in sodomy (by definition) eagerly and enthusiastically on a daily basis all over the world.

    This isn't rocket science.

    If you personally chose to bastardize the definition then you need to unequivocally state for the record exactly what YOUR definition is. As I've asked one person here to do, and he's consistently refused to do that.


    From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    Definition of SODOMY

    : anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;

    Simple, concise, to the point, and clear as day.


    SodomyAnal or oral intercourse between human beings


    To argue against these definitions using the bible is just outright silly, biased, and unconstitutional to boot.
    Last edited by Dragonfly; 09-08-13 at 10:39 AM.

  5. #265
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,902

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it's possible for a slippery slope to actually be one.
    Why limit the redefinition of "marriage" to only two people? Why not to "throuples"? Why shouldn't polyamorous relationships be legal?

    Here is a an opinion piece at WaPo by an estate attorney who is arguing for "wedleases" rather than wedlock: A high divorce rate means it’s time to try ‘wedleases’ - The Washington Post

    A National Review article discusses new terms such as "throuples" and defines "monogamish."
    Redefine Marriage, Debase Language? | National Review Online

    Ryan Anderson goes on to argue:

    The breakdown of the marriage culture since the 1960s made it possible in this generation to consider redefining marriage in the law to exclude sexual complementarity. But if the law redefines marriage to say the male-female aspect is arbitrary, what principle will be left to retain monogamy, or sexual exclusivity, or the expectation of permanency?

    What these new words and redefinitions have in common is that they make marriage primarily about adult desire, primarily an intense emotional relationship between (or among) consenting adults, regardless of size or shape. And why should relationships among consenting adults be exclusive? Or permanent?

    Here's the New York Magazine article that introduced "throuple": The Sex Issue - A Long Island City Throuple in the Gay Porn Industry -- New York Magazine
    I certainly don't see the slippery slope as a fallacy. Captain Courtesy does. I see it a reality due to the changes in LAW.
    Good points.

  6. #266
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Ah. The slippery slope logical fallacy. Always one of the favorites of those who try to debate the opposite side of the issue.
    The difference between a slippery slope and the well established path of incremental-ism is what exactly?

  7. #267
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Ezekiel 16 - "As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it."
    LOL....like I said....Cafeteria choosing....God says "They hadPRIDE, EXCESS OF FOOD, PROSPEROUS EASE and did not aid the poor and needy"...and you try to point to a generic "abomination". Maybe they were wearing clothing made of two different fabrics, ate shellfish or had sex while menstruating.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  8. #268
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,902

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, it does not have justified reasoning and is not a valid analogy. Maybe to someone whose argument is based on emotion, but not with logic.

    What analogy do you want to try, vesper? Polygamy? Polygamy is not a sexual orientation; homosexuality is. Polygamy has no research that demonstrates it's positive attributes to the health of the individuals, children, and society as a whole; homosexuality does. Want to try for NAMBLA/pedophilia? NAMBLA/pedophilia addresses children, who cannot consent; homosexuality/SSM addresses those who can consent. NAMBLA/pedophilia harms other people; homosexuality/SSM does not.

    See? VERY poor analogies which demonstrate how the slippery slope fallacy is in effect for your argument and fails to prove your position.
    Really? NAMBLA IS a Homosexual organization. And you act like laws can never change to protect the age of consent. Under aged girls now have the right to seek an abortion without their parents knowing. Did most see that coming 10 years ago? In Mexico consensual sex between a 12 and 18 year old is not considered illegal.

  9. #269
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,133

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    No, it isn't at all. However, I didn't present it as a story of great sexual morality either.

    Well, the point isn't Sodom's destruction, or what specific sin or sins led to Sodom's destruction; moreover I never put forth homosexuality as *the* sin in that context either.

    Yes they do, you are correct, the bible does refer to many things as "abominations." And while homosexuality is considered an abomination: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Lev 18:22), and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Lev 20:13), other behaviors are called abominations too. This is correct.

    I won't dispute that. But neither do I think I need to. If the assertion now is that, in the context of laws, that the definition of sodomy has been so watered down as to include loving heterosexual couples engaging in oral or anal sex - that ergo, sodomy in general is [now] a perfectly normal and loving thing between a husband and a wife, or between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman - as was the original assertion that began this train of discussion, then that I do dispute, vehemently.

    I [first] dispute the efforts by whomever to broaden the definition of sodomy beyond its original and logical meaning - specifically to broaden it to include as you note "unnatural sex acts" let alone, bestiality. W/r to the bible, there is zero justification for doing this. None whatsoever.

    Second, in the English language (and I know you know this, just pointing out), we generally affix a "y" to the end of some words (e.g. sodom'y') to indicate likeness, or similarity - e.g. water'y' means "like water." In our context we're talking about "like sodom." Now, we only have one source - the bible - to learn what sodom "was like." Whatever the sins of sodom were, and as you correctly noted, they were many and varied, the SEXUAL sins of sodom, according to the bible, were singular, one. Homosexuality. Ezekiel 16 corroborates this, as does Genesis 19.

    Now, some have attempted the rather puerile assertion that sodomy refers strictly to "homosexual rape," ostensibly no doubt to be able later to assert that for other than cases of rape that homosexual sex is perfectly fine and normal. This is a very simple thing to refute inasmuch as we know the intent of the men of the city was to have sex with the men who had come to rescue Lot. That they were willing to do it forcibly I think goes without question; however, it would be difficult to refute that they would have relented if they'd found willing partners. They were driven strictly by their peculiar sexual desires, desires the bible calls abominable, which Leviticus 13 and Leviticus 20 corroborate.
    Actually, the Bible provides the justification for defining sodomy the way it has been done. ANY sex outside of marriage and outside of the purpose of procreation is seen as unnatural and outside of the will of God. That is why I don't give two craps when most folk try to reference the Bible in this respect. They generally are people who had plenty of premarital sex, or engaged in sex acts outside of vaginal sex, or committed adultery, or were divorced. etc. People like to interpret the Bible to suit their own prejudices and so the whole idea that the word "sodomite" is watered down is kind of ridiculous to me. Particularly since the Jewish interpretation of the story of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality but with inhospitality. People are entitled to believe what they want but trying to reference the story of Sodom to dictate whether a scene of GANG RAPE is an example of homosexuality is kind of ridiculous in itself. I would think the RAPE might be more at issue but if people want to reference Leviticus to push their position I say go ahead but if you are wearing any polyester or eating any shell fish, you are kind of a hypocrite.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  10. #270
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:15 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,561

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Really? NAMBLA IS a Homosexual organization. And you act like laws can never change to protect the age of consent. Under aged girls now have the right to seek an abortion without their parents knowing. Did most see that coming 10 years ago? In Mexico consensual sex between a 12 and 18 year old is not considered illegal.
    You have become extremely circular and predictable in your repeated attempts to equate same-sex marriage with pedophilia.

    Men have been marrying women since the dawn of time and there is still an age of consent. In fact it's only been relatively recent that the age for consent has been raised, NOT lowered.

    Allowing same-sex marriage isn't going to shift age of consent laws. It's not going to happen no matter how much you insist it will.

    History has proven that you are wrong here. We protect our children.

    Do you know what ages were considered socially acceptable for marriage during biblical times? Much younger than today's standards.

    Stop the circular repeating statements that carry no credibility.

Page 27 of 120 FirstFirst ... 1725262728293777 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •