"Woman marries dolphin"
Posted on 08/16/2006 9:50:04 AM PDT by Abathar
To some, man on man sex is just as repulsive as man on sheep.
Of course you can combine the two with some Brokeback Mountain fun.
LOL! Good one, I have to remember that....
"Woman marries dolphin"
.
There may be something to this:
Sheep,the OTHER white meat!
Fine by me, so long as no one is hurt.
What gives gays the right to change the definition to fit what they want but others are denied their definition? Gays are being discriminatory.
No, you are being discriminatory. Gays simply are fighting for themselves. Not fighting someone else's battle is not discriminatory.
Let's change it to a woman and her German Shepherd. If the male animal initiates sex, she is not forcing herself on Wolfgang. She would make the argument that it is clearly not animal abuse. Wolfgang is happier, he eats better, his coat is shinier, etc. Do you think some sicko won't make the argument?
If there is no history of abuse, why can't a grown daughter marry daddy? They will make the argument.
Again, you are pushing the slippery slope argument. So just becuase someone is going to try to change the system further, you want to stop it now. I will fight the woman who wants to have sex with her dog. I will fight the father who wants to marry his daughter. Just becuase those two things should be illegal doesn't mean that gay marriage should be as well. In a way, this is a straw man argument.
The other problem with this argument is that in a way, you are conceding that gay marriage isn't wrong, but that it is similar to things that are, and so you want to nip the problem in the bud. Liberals make a similar argument with gun control (i.e. if people are allowed to have weapons, then irresponsible people will have weapons, and to keep weapons out of the hands of the irresponsible people, lets take them away from everybody).
Retaining the definition of marriage that has worked for centuries is not forcing your will on others.
Logical fallacy: appeal to tradition. Slavery went on for centuries. Did that make it ok? And no, I don't mean to compare gay marriage to slavery. I am simply trying to point out that maintaining the status quo is not a good argument.
Quite frankly, marriage does provide some protections that civil unions do not provide. I do not have the entire list in front of me, but I see no reason to not provide homosexuals the same rights and protections as heterosexuals.
Of course, like you mentioned, the next step for gays is the adoption of children. On that battle, I will fight on your side. However, I do not believe in denying rights to someone simply becuase I know that they will be asking for more once they get them.
I do not know what Bible you are referring to, but it is not the one used by Christians. That monogamy was the condition that was intended for mankind is evidenced by Genesis 2:24, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." The context is that of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, right after Eve was created from the body of Adam by supernatural means. The first case of polygamy recorded in the Scriptures had to do with a descendant of the infamous Cain: Lamech, who "took unto him two wives" (Gen. 4:19).
Some argue that the Old Testament condones polygamy by citing the examples of Kings David and Solomon. Yet David's adultery with Bathsheba led to his committing murder of Bathsheba's husband, the death of a son by his relationship with her, and God placing a curse on his household. Deuteronomy 17:17 states that a king is not to take many wives, as it would lead his heart astray. While King Solomon was certainly a polygamist, I Kings 11:3 indicates that his multiple wives did lead him astray, including the worship of false gods.
The New Testament specifically denounces polygamy. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus Christ repeats the Genesis 2 language on marriage being between a man and a woman as context for His statement that divorce is forbidden except in cases of adultery. The Apostle Paul, in Romans 7:1-4, terms a woman who is married to another man while her husband is still alive an adultress. In I Corinthians 7:1-2, he states that every man should have his own wife and every wife her own husband, except for those cases where a person chooses celibacy. In both Titus and I Timothy, Paul avers that deacons and elders are to be the husbands of only one wife.
Church teachings have historically forbidden polygamy. As far back as the second century AD, documents such as the Shepherd of Hermas (150 AD) and Justin Martyr condemn polygamy as well as divorce without cause. Church councils in the fourth century and afterward condemned it, as did the church fathers such as Augustine of Hippo. Protestants who revolted against Rome were equally condemning of polygamy. The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith condemns the practice. The Westminster Confession of Faith states: "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time." The legal codes of historically Christian nations - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant - forbade polygamy and prohibited divorce, except in cases of adultery and desertion.
Both Scripture and the practice and teaching of the Christian churches from the very beginning have clearly and repeatedly condemned polygamy.
I just couldn't understand those two guys from Brokeback Mountain,ya know?
All those GREAT looking sheep around them and they want to have sex with another MAN!
Polygamy was regulated, not forbidden.
Exodus 21:10: "If he takes to himself another woman", :Deuteronomy 21:15-17 "If a man have two wives".
The rights of the firstborn went to whatever son was born first, regardless of which woman bore this child (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).
Each wife was to be treated equally. Equal food, clothing, and affection. (Exodus 21:10).
If a man died without children then his brother was obliged to marry the widow. (Deuteronomy 25 vv 7-10). There is nothing to suggest that this was limited to unmarried brothers, is there?
I don't see a prohibition in the NT. Rather, a nudging toward monogamy.
Now, you can argue things changed. Socially, they did. The economic benifits of polygamy have been shattered. That, and only that, accounts for its present demise. Believe me, the New Testament would come under some reinterpretation on the matter should the need arise.
Marriage is based on biology/ The tradition is simply that marriage is an institution that has developed to provide care for human progeny, which takes a long while to mature, and which must not only be nurtured but educated. Homosexuality makes sex,or rather the pleasure that goes with it, which are intended to produce children, an end in itself. In demanding the rights attendent to marriage, the homosexual couple take away the resources of society that ought to go toward the rearing of children. But there is another evil that goes with this: the gays demand that the schools inculcate their sexual morality in children, thereby driving a wedge between them and those parents who reject this morality.
Sounds about right to me.
It is fine by you that the definition of marriage is changed by someone as long as no one is hurt. No one is hurt if a woman has sex with her German Shepherd that inititated the sex. No animal abuse. If they get married, it hasn't hurt you.
Yes, I want to stop changing it now. I am amazed that you criticize the slippery slope argument in this case. It is as clear as in any case I've ever seen. The slippery slope has even been sprayed with WD40. Because you are an atheist, you have no cultural or religious appreciation of why people are fighting to keep marriage as it is. Bringing in the argument of slavery is preposterous. Bringing in gun control is also preposterous.
Oh, so you will fight the father who wants to marry his daughter. Why? Your argument collapses if can be demonstrated that it won't hurt anyone. If even one case can be shown that it won't hurt anyone, in your world it should be allowed.
If gays can change what has been the definition of marriage, who do you think you are to stand in someone else's way? You won't draw the line now, but you are going to draw the line where you want to draw the line. Who are you to draw that line? Someone else is going to perceive that you are stomping on their rights just as you accuse others of doing now with gays. Once the definition is changed, the institution has been destroyed. You know that.
Why would you stand in the way of gay adoption? You recognize their loving marital relationship. It they are in love, married, and are economically stable, they will make the case that they would be very good adoptive parents.
Thank God you are not a federal judge.
It has also developed for one spouse to provide care for the other. In addition, lesbians can have children; nothing prevents one or both of them getting knocked up and raising those kids together.
homosexual couple take away the resources of society that ought to go toward the rearing of children.
What resources are those?
the gays demand that the schools inculcate their sexual morality in children
I haven't seen this personally, but that I will fight against.
As for whether polygamy is permitted at some future time by some churches that style themselves Christian, it is indeed possible. Who would have thought 100 years ago that the Episcopalian Church would select an unrepentant homosexual as a bishop, or that mainline Protestant denominations would be pro-abortion? However, when the doctrines and practices of a church deviate from Biblical teachings, said churches are "synagogues of Satan."
But it developed specifically so that a male and female provide care for one another, with the view of producing children. Two men or two women don't need marriage provide for each other's needs; that is called friendship. A lebian relationshop cannot produce children. A women can have children, but she needs a male agent to produce them. It can be argued that a childless couple ought not to have certain tax breaks. Why multiply the incidence of childless unions? The California legislature is presently considering legislation that would require the schools to teach tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle.
Animals and children can easily be tricked into doing things that are not good for them. Hence animals and children are considered to not be able to consent to such actions.
Yes, I want to stop changing it now. I am amazed that you criticize the slippery slope argument in this case.
There is a clearly defined wall at the end of the slippery slope. Polygamy the may be the next step, but incest and bestiality always brings in a question of competance to make decisions.
Bringing in the argument of slavery is preposterous. Bringing in gun control is also preposterous.
Care to explain why? I believe they were reasonable in their context.
Oh, so you will fight the father who wants to marry his daughter. Why? Your argument collapses if can be demonstrated that it won't hurt anyone.
It does hurt someone. Firstly, the problem with relatives getting married is the risk to potential children. In addition, a relationship between siblings or parents/children that progresses to a romantic one is a clear indication of psychological issues. In a manner, I suppose it is similar to the suicide catch-22: if you are suicidal, you must therefore be mentally unwell, and are unable to competantly make the decision to kill yourself.
If gays can change what has been the definition of marriage, who do you think you are to stand in someone else's way? You won't draw the line now, but you are going to draw the line where you want to draw the line. Who are you to draw that line?
I don't want to be hurt, and as such, it is my duty to make sure that others are not hurt as well. That is my line. Other than that, I believe that people should be free and treated equally. I don't believe that one group of people should receive inferior or "separate but equal" treatment than another group.
Someone else is going to perceive that you are stomping on their rights just as you accuse others of doing now with gays.
And I will only intervene if I believe that that person's actions are stomping on the rights of someone else. I believe that a woman who has sex with her dog is infringing upon the animals limited rights. I believe that someone who wants to marry a relative is ill, and is to be protected from themselves.
Once the definition is changed, the institution has been destroyed. You know that.
I don't think that. I believe that people getting divorced is doing a lot more harm than gays getting married.
Why would you stand in the way of gay adoption? You recognize their loving marital relationship. It they are in love, married, and are economically stable, they will make the case that they would be very good adoptive parents.
And I can easily make the case that the effects of children in such situations has not been studied. Eventually there will be data on this; lesbians are having kids, and homosexual men are finding ways to have children as well. If it turns out that these people are having kids that are coming out normal, then I would not get in the way of gay adoption. In either case, I certainly would not advocate taking away biological children of homosexuals.
Tell me, why are you against gay marriage?
Friends can be called to testify against their friend in court. Friends can't always visity another friend in a hospital. Friends is not granted protections should they share property and break up.
A lebian relationshop cannot produce children.
It is not uncommon for one or both members of a lesbian couple to have sex with a man to have kids. I have heard of such situations, and they are raising the children together. I am interested in seeing how the kids turn out.
It can be argued that a childless couple ought not to have certain tax breaks.
But they are still married and enjoy certain legal protections that homosexuals do not.
The California legislature is presently considering legislation that would require the schools to teach tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle.
I am vocal against such things. I have been banned from DU, actually.
I wish I had time to read the whole article and thread! And how I wish I had a chance to vote for Janet Rowland.
I'm with you. Only 2.5 months to go, and things are still quiet. Ritter's got a lot of enthusiasm on his side, and the GOP stalwarts are still grousing about BB's support for Referenda C and D.
I myself had a favorable opinion of Ritter at first, thinking he'd stand up as a Pro-Life dem. Stupid I was. His campaign's new statements sure don't help my opinion of him.
It is an accurate statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.