Proposition 8

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

why bring religion into it?

I didn't.

Who did Howard?

Hell if I know. Am I my PackerRats brother keeper?

Exactly, but you appear to be mine.

It is just amazing how you can always manage to critique my usage of the bible/religion.

Whether or not you believe in Christianity is not the issue with your lack of knowledge on the subject. You are unaware of one of the cornerstones of the religion; that being the Trinity.

It’s OK to once and a while admit you are not an expert on a subject.

Unaware? LOL

Where do you determine that from my posts?

Yeah, i guess i never have heard of that...i always wondered about my friend who went to Trinity in Texas. Yeah, never have heard of the father, son and the holy ghost.

Yep, just having catholic friends and attending church with them taught me nothing. :roll:

Yep, dating a Unitarian taught me nothing. :roll:

Guess living in the south and being exposed regularly to pentecostals who don't believe in that..or living in Phx and working regularly with LDS members who dont' believe in it either. Yep, a foreign concept. :roll:

Yep, being married to a woman that converted and attending her parents church regularly taught me nothing. :roll:

Howard, this is a christian country for the most part. It is almost impossible if you are a sentient being to not pickup on your religion. It is as pervasive as air.

[HowardRoark]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

why bring religion into it?

I didn't.

Who did Howard?

Hell if I know. Am I my PackerRats brother keeper?

Exactly, but you appear to be mine.

It is just amazing how you can always manage to critique my usage of the bible/religion.

Whether or not you believe in Christianity is not the issue with your lack of knowledge on the subject. You are unaware of one of the cornerstones of the religion; that being the Trinity.

It’s OK to once and a while admit you are not an expert on a subject.

Unaware? LOL

Where do you determine that from my posts?

Yeah, i guess i never have heard of that...i always wondered about my friend who went to Trinity in Texas. Yeah, never have heard of the father, son and the holy ghost.

Yep, just having catholic friends and attending church with them taught me nothing. :roll:

Yep, dating a Unitarian taught me nothing. :roll:

Guess living in the south and being exposed regularly to pentecostals who don't believe in that..or living in Phx and working regularly with LDS members who dont' believe in it either. Yep, a foreign concept. :roll:

Yep, being married to a woman that converted and attending her parents church regularly taught me nothing. :roll:

Howard, this is a christian country for the most part. It is almost impossible if you are a sentient being to not pickup on your religion. It is as pervasive as air.

Look, otown, with all due respect, I know every possible intricacy of what you did, do, and don’t know on the subject. Back at OT: Movie Recommendation, there was a month long discussion on the topic. It already is the second time around for your little cut and paste up above. I’ve seen it and heard it all before.

You had your co-dependent Abe to help you out. Go find him, let’s do it again. Sure, Robert (Nietzsche rest his soul) was there to pipe in once in awhile. And greenday, (Mr Fancypants with his PhDs) added some lucidity. I see GK and Cy are here now too. But really, this has all been done before.

[Cy]

Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others.

I agree. Who's talking about religion?

Cy: Obama is. He wants everyone to be his brother's keeper.

Cool! Imposing religion is back in style!

[texaspackerbacker]

Thank you, Harlan. I learned a new word today--miscenegation.

There is a colossal difference between homosexuality/gay marriage and miscenegation/interracial marriage. That difference is that the Christian Bible, not to mention teachings of virtually every other major and minor religion consider homosexuality a sinful and abominable behavior. Mixing of the races, on the other hand, has little or no religious foundation, Christian or otherwise.

As for those of us of the conservative persuasion being preoccupied with the gay marriage issue, I don't think so. It's more like you lefties are preoccupied that way. The status quo, after all, is still with us, as is the bulk of public opinion--based on the Prop 8 results.

Liberals can whine all they want about separation of church and state, but the fact that homosexuality is an abomination according to Christianity is NOT a church/state issue. It is a matter of the will of the majority being supreme in a democracy--representative or not. And that will clearly opposes gay marriage.

Quite funny Tex. As the bible was used extensively to show that interacial marriage was bad.

Exodus 34:10-16 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 were used.

And, even today you will find Christians who oppose it and can give you bible quotes.

http://www.thekingdomnow.org/content/RacialMixing.htm


Well, Tyrone, in this post and more so in your later one--assuming it's not plagiarized, you show some really extensive Biblical knowledge--a lot more than I have. I've known atheists before that were like that--they usually had some pretty bad and sad psychological problems--not that you're like that or anything.

Anyway, if you notice my post above, I CLEARLY STATE that this is NOT a religious matter--NOT a church/state issue. It's you guys--the leftists/the atheists/whatever that are preoccupied with religion and who try to make the whole discussion something it is not.

What it is--as i stated--is a matter of the majority view being the rule. Sure, you gotta respect the rights of the damned degenerates of the minority and all that crap, but your side keeps trying through the courts, through your control of the media and education establishment, through your domination of the entertainment community TO INFLICT ABOMINABLE CRAP--INCLUDING THE MAINSTREAMING OF HOMOSEXUALITY--ON THE GOOD NORMAL MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY. If that isn't so obvious as to not even need proof, this passage of Prop 8 in probably the most liberal most all around weird region of the country provides blatant proof.

Just because those of us on the "normal" side of the spectrum oppose the abomination of homosexuality on religious grounds does NOT make it a religious issue. It is a democracy issue.

And while your digging up of that plethora of "Thou shalt nots" is very commendable, I doubt the majority of Americans oppose eating crabs or wearing blended fabrics or whatever.

Sorry about the bold/underlined/italics. I didn't know how to make things bold, so I was just messing around clicking on things. I didn't know it would work.

[mraynrand]

Thanx for making my point for me Rand. Using the bible in today's society is foolish at best.

Game. Set. Match.

It is if you don't understand it.

Down, Set, Hut.

I completely understand it. But, since i'm not a christian, it holds no value for me. Oops. Yep, i'm sure a muslin, hindu or buddhist is very interested in know his/her "sins" will be absolved if they accept Christ. :oops:

My god, you are really dense.

It obviously holds great value for you - as a cudgel. Many muslims, buddhists and hindus are interested in the message of Christ - even if they don't accept it. Some who aren't interested in conversion, actually want to understand it - as many Chirstians want to understand other religions. And not simply so they can go quote mining to insult people of other religions. And if you really do understand it, as you claim, you wouldn't forward a trivial, first grade level understanding of Old Testament law. I suspect you do understand, but you find comfort and pleasure in insulting remarks and presenting a view that trivializes religion. If you take a step back, you might notice that it makes you look like an angry child who doesn't want to go to church.

Bump Set Spike

[mraynrand]

And greenday, (Mr Fancypants with his PhDs) added some lucidity. .

We should gt that guy to log on. We need a Mr. Fancypants here.

[swede]

My favorite West Wing episode:


West Wing: the television show that fantasized about liberal issues and presented weekly smackdowns of evil, hateful Republicans, allowing liberal ladies to survive the Bush era by pretending the President was really a Democrat.

[GrnBay007]

Bump Set Spike

A beautiful site when played perfectly!! :P


...sorry, I have a passion for V-ball. :D

[Zool]

Blue 98......blue 98....check

Razor razor razor

red 319.....red 319

[Harlan Huckleby]

Cy: Obama is. He wants everyone to be his brother's keeper.

Cool! Imposing religion is back in style!

The idea that government should work for the common good and relieve suffering is nothing new, it has building for about 250 years, and especially the last 100 years.

IT seems that you, Partial, Wist, AynRand believe we can return to the world of 1800, when men were men and people fended for themselves. Charles Dickens wrote about the early 19th century, have a look. The great experiement of small government and unbridled enterprise has already been tried.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Blacks approved the ban 70-30 in both CA and FL. Just an FYI.

Blacks are great opponents of bigotry. Except when they are against gays, asians and hispanics.

[mraynrand]

Cy: Obama is. He wants everyone to be his brother's keeper.

Cool! Imposing religion is back in style!

The idea that government should work for the common good and relieve suffering is nothing new, it has building for about 250 years, and especially the last 100 years.

IT seems that you, Partial, Wist, AynRand believe we can return to the world of 1800, when men were men and people fended for themselves. Charles Dickens wrote about the early 19th century, have a look. The great experiement of small government and unbridled enterprise has already been tried.

Harlan, you are very passionate. The idea that people should work for the common good and relieve suffering is nothing new - it has been around since the dawn of mankind. . The idea that an overarching government is necessary for this to work other than by free will is a recent invention. And the last 100 years you refer to haven't provided a sterling endorsement for government enforcement of 'the common good.' Desperate folks looking for a better life through collectivism and government control spawned Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. etc. If you look throughout the history of the United States and the colonies, you will actually find that free men, working together voluntarily, accomplished great things and lived extremely well, all without intrusive government control. The great experiment you talk of has been tried and it is the only one that produced fantastic wealth, fantastic increases in standard of living, and opportunity. Unfortunately it is starting to fail, because people want to usher back in the protection of a great leader and a great government that will care for all our needs.

[texaspackerbacker]

Blacks approved the ban 70-30 in both CA and FL. Just an FYI.

Blacks are great opponents of bigotry. Except when they are against gays, asians and hispanics.

Exactly what I have said many times--except I framed it as a good thing.

Black people are indeed, moral and normal on social issues to an even greater extent than white people--which makes it a damn shame that 95% or so of them vote CONTRARY to those pristine values like opposing homosexuality.

How did this thread get hijacked onto the government/collectivism versus individualism discussion?

What you are ignoring or overlooking, Harlan, is that collectivism has invariably resulted in the societies practicing it being dragged down, while the cumulative effect of the self interest of individuals--which is the essence of free enterprise capitalism--has invariably resulted in prosperity and the collective uplifting of all. The glitch in the system--which you cited--is that unregulated capitalism sometimes turns on itself in the form of monopolies--which stifle all those lofty collective benefits rooted in individual self interest.

Modern-day liberals, closet socialists that most of them are, would throw out the baby with the bath water by crippling the prosperity brought to us by our magnificent American free enterprise capitalist system.

[th87]

My favorite West Wing episode:


West Wing: the television show that fantasized about liberal issues and presented weekly smackdowns of evil, hateful Republicans, allowing liberal ladies to survive the Bush era by pretending the President was really a Democrat.

Though this may be, the guy was dead-on with respect to the picking and choosing of Biblical laws to obey.

[th87]

Looks like our tidy little liberal fictional president (who seems a lot like our not so fictional president elect) was choosing passages a la carte - as is Ty Bigguns. Not to mention out of historical context.



Agreed with the context thing. People are always quoting the Quran out of context to purport that it preaches hate.

[th87]

Throw a child into the mix and I become homophobic. No amount of freedoms guaranteed by any consitution on earth will change my opinion on this. In fact, constitutions should be amended to prohibit this.



One question. Why?

What happens if a child is adopted by a gay couple?

What do you feel will be the outcome?

Well, that's actually 3 questions, but semantics aside, I am happy to answer them.

1. Why? = Because God, Divinity Nature saw fit to have to sexes necessary to produce.

2. What if? = The child has no chance at being adopted by a hetero couple, which I feel, is a bad thing.

3. Outcome = The big unknown. At best, they will spread the word that being Gay is a nice thing. At worst, they will be taught that being Gay is the ONLY thing.

It remains unnatural any way you want to spin it.

I might lose any credibility I ever had here on this forum over this issue. I might lose all of my friends. That would really sadden me a great deal. But I will defend my position irrationally until I die. And that position is very very clear.

"Gays should never be entrusted with the rearing of our offspring. Ever"

1. The lack of production ability doesn't necessarily mean that raising ability is impaired. What are the necessary ingredients to raise a child anyway?

Teach the kid love, respect, and perspective. You're telling me gay people can't do that?

2. Heterosexual couples get first preference, so this isn't an issue.

3. Here's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Homosexuality is not a choice. Not a socialized behavior. I find it impossible to believe that someone would CHOOSE to face a life of ridicule, hardship, and avoidance.

[Kiwon]

Looks like our tidy little liberal fictional president (who seems a lot like our not so fictional president elect) was choosing passages a la carte - as is Ty Bigguns. Not to mention out of historical context.



Agreed with the context thing. People are always quoting the Quran out of context to purport that it preaches hate.

Who?

[Tarlam!]

I find it impossible to believe that someone would CHOOSE to face a life of ridicule, hardship, and avoidance.

Indeed. I find it even harder to believe a "loving parent" would subject his adoptive offspring to exactly this environment consciously. Gay adoptive "parents" indeed choose this environment for their charges.

Homosexual love is clearly egotistical. Completely and utterly. It is all about "ME". "I want to fuck men, but I want a child, despite the fact that 88% of humans are not like me, despite the fact that my partner and I cannot reproduce because neither of us has ever has a womb.

I am a better parent, because I know the difference between red and scarlet. I can sing 'I will survive' verbatim and I know Prado shoes from fake Luis Vuitton handbags!!! Screeeech and schrieeeeek "

Look, homo, buy a fucking goldfish.

[falco]

I find it impossible to believe that someone would CHOOSE to face a life of ridicule, hardship, and avoidance.

Indeed. I find it even harder to believe a "loving parent" would subject his adoptive offspring to exactly this environment. Gay adoptive "parentzs" ideed choose this environment for their charges.

Homosexual love is clearly egotistical. Completely and utterly. It is all about "ME". I want a child, despite the fact that 88% of humans are not like me, despite the fact that my partner and i cannot reproduce.

Look, homo, buy a fucking goldfish.

whaT?

[Tarlam!]

whaT?

What what?

[falco]

whaT?

What what?

in the butt

GOTCHA

[Tarlam!]

whaT?

What what?

in the butt

GOTCHA

What?

[falco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU

in all seriousness though Tarlam, I respect your opinion, but am simultaneously saddened by it.

[Tarlam!]

Mozart, it is the single thing on this planet that makes me truly want to throw up apart from hideous crimes against children and women and animals.

Obviously, my first wrath is against pedophiles and women beaters/ rapists, then animal torturers and murders.

Then come the gays that want to adopt.

For me, a non violent honest thief has more honour.

Mind you, I still have nothing against to consenting gays "uniting".

[falco]

Mozart, it is the single thing on this planet that makes me truly want to throw up apart from hideous crimes against children and women and animals.

Obviously, my first wrath is against pedophiles and women beaters/ rapists, then animal torturers and murders.

Then come the gays that want to adopt.

For me, a non violent honest thief has more honour.

Mind you, I still have nothing against to consenting gays "uniting".

thats okay tarlam - i still like you! in my mind, there are numerous different factors that make households unsuitable or unsafe for child raising...I don't see same sex parents as one of them.

[HowardRoark]

psst.

cy.

your hate is showing

:oops:

I am not well versed in Newspeak. Where is the hate?

[Tarlam!]

there are numerous different factors that make households unsuitable or unsafe for child raising...I don't see same sex parents as one of them.

You make an excellent point and as a society, we really should be working on safening the domestic environment, especially for children. Mozart, I agree with that!!

I am not suggesting gay parents pose a threat. On the contrary, from what I have learned from all of you that support gay adoptions, they make even better parents!

Doesn't make it biologically correct, though, does it!!!

I live with a girl that seemingly can't have kids. I love her to death. She's 41.

In February, we were all gaga, because I still had a job and we thought she was pregnant. I already have two and she is yet to enjoy motherhood. Anyways, turns out she's missing that special hormone that allows the fertilized egg to "nest". Poor kid. I can't help her, and we are too old to adopt.

But, Gerhard Schröder at 59 years old called his pal Boris Jelzin and got a Russian infant adopted within a fucking week.

So, there seems to be no moral high or low ground, just what there is.

Irrationally, I will continue to plead against Gay adoptions.

[MJZiggy]

I thought you could get that hormone artificially??

[texaspackerbacker]

Mozart, it is the single thing on this planet that makes me truly want to throw up apart from hideous crimes against children and women and animals.

Obviously, my first wrath is against pedophiles and women beaters/ rapists, then animal torturers and murders.

Then come the gays that want to adopt.

For me, a non violent honest thief has more honour.

Mind you, I still have nothing against to consenting gays "uniting".

And WHY is a viewpoint like this even controversial?

Even I would not oppose letting consenting gays "unite"--although I would probably phrase it as letting same sex ass-fuckers practice their abomination.

It is refreshing, however, to see the closest thing we have to a true middle-of-the-roader we have like Tarlam acknowledge that homosexuality is right up there with those other abominations.

Letting consenting adults do what they want to do in private is one thing. Letting them inflict their perversion on society in general and potentially adopted kids in particular crosses the line.

[Cy]

Cy: Obama is. He wants everyone to be his brother's keeper.

Cool! Imposing religion is back in style!

The idea that government should work for the common good and relieve suffering is nothing new, it has building for about 250 years, and especially the last 100 years.

IT seems that you, Partial, Wist, AynRand believe we can return to the world of 1800, when men were men and people fended for themselves. Charles Dickens wrote about the early 19th century, have a look. The great experiement of small government and unbridled enterprise has already been tried.

Cy: Yeah, and this idea got a jump start with the early Progressive movement. You remember that, right, those eggheads who went over to Mussolini's fascist Italy and concluded that it was a brilliant system. The Progressives who had a civilian corps looking around for "un-patriotic" people who rejected the idea of collective rights.

Your's is an argument of historical determination, that "history is going in this direction, and so we'd better just accept it."

But mine is an argument of morality. Where is the morality in forcing a man at gunpoint to give his hard earned wealth to another? Where is the morality in that? Please tell me.

You all need to read "Liberal Fascism" and then read "The Forgotten Man."

Your conclusion, Harlan, is actually the reverse: Collectivism has been tried before, and it has failed abjectly, miserably, and often at great cost to human life.

[Cy]

My favorite West Wing episode:


West Wing: the television show that fantasized about liberal issues and presented weekly smackdowns of evil, hateful Republicans, allowing liberal ladies to survive the Bush era by pretending the President was really a Democrat.

Though this may be, the guy was dead-on with respect to the picking and choosing of Biblical laws to obey.

Cy: No he wasn't. That little soliloquy was obnoxious, a straw man fabricated by Hollywood, because in their secularist cacoon they haven't a clue of what Christians really believe. But it sure made the ignorant feel good about hearing it. Secularists and liberals heard it and said, "Yeahhh, Go get 'em, Prez!" Christians heard it and said, "huh? What's he talking about."

To say that the rejection of homosexula marriage is an "imposition of our morality" is to deny that anyone can be against homosexual marriage unless he is a "man of the book." Which is absurd.

Anyone who wishes to maintain the traditional undersstanding of meaning and language could and would be against homosexual marriage. Citizens in a Republic have an interest in maintaining stability, and part of that stability demands that traditional institutions are maintained.

Why, for example, could polygamy be argued for and defended with the SAME arguments used to defend homosexual marriage? Or incest? Or any number of different arrangements?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Collectivism has been tried before, and it has failed abjectly, miserably, and often at great cost to human life.

This is true. That's why we meld elements of free markets and collectivism. Implemented as pure ideologies, both systems fail.

[Tarlam!]

Why, for example, could polygamy be argued for and defended with the SAME arguments used to defend homosexual marriage? Or incest? Or any number of different arrangements?

Now, that makes me stop and think.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I completely understand it.

You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity.

why bring religion into it?

I didn't.

Who did Howard?

Hell if I know. Am I my PackerRats brother keeper?

Exactly, but you appear to be mine.

It is just amazing how you can always manage to critique my usage of the bible/religion.

Whether or not you believe in Christianity is not the issue with your lack of knowledge on the subject. You are unaware of one of the cornerstones of the religion; that being the Trinity.

It’s OK to once and a while admit you are not an expert on a subject.

Unaware? LOL

Where do you determine that from my posts?

Yeah, i guess i never have heard of that...i always wondered about my friend who went to Trinity in Texas. Yeah, never have heard of the father, son and the holy ghost.

Yep, just having catholic friends and attending church with them taught me nothing. :roll:

Yep, dating a Unitarian taught me nothing. :roll:

Guess living in the south and being exposed regularly to pentecostals who don't believe in that..or living in Phx and working regularly with LDS members who dont' believe in it either. Yep, a foreign concept. :roll:

Yep, being married to a woman that converted and attending her parents church regularly taught me nothing. :roll:

Howard, this is a christian country for the most part. It is almost impossible if you are a sentient being to not pickup on your religion. It is as pervasive as air.

Look, otown, with all due respect, I know every possible intricacy of what you did, do, and don’t know on the subject. Back at OT: Movie Recommendation, there was a month long discussion on the topic. It already is the second time around for your little cut and paste up above. I’ve seen it and heard it all before.

You had your co-dependent Abe to help you out. Go find him, let’s do it again. Sure, Robert (Nietzsche rest his soul) was there to pipe in once in awhile. And greenday, (Mr Fancypants with his PhDs) added some lucidity. I see GK and Cy are here now too. But really, this has all been done before.

You have me confused with someone else. Seriously. If you think that I or anyone else who has half a brain hasn't heard of the trinity then you are really a moron. The whole thing (trinity) doesn't make much sense to me, but to think i haven't heard of it...that is laughable.

I grew up with catholics and protestants. My family owned a boat with a catholic family. I attended church with them many times and was inquisitive about their brand of christianity.

My ex's family was UCC. I attended church with them too many times to count..including many a sermon that left me quite cold about how they viewed non christians.

So, please stop embarrassing yourself.

You know ever intricacy? Really? LOL

Abe help me out? Again you have me confused. Abe and I rarely saw i to eye...and he was one who belittled anyone who believed in religion..not me.

[HowardRoark]

Look, otown, with all due respect, I know every possible intricacy of what you did, do, and don’t know on the subject. Back at OT: Movie Recommendation, there was a month long discussion on the topic. It already is the second time around for your little cut and paste up above. I’ve seen it and heard it all before.

You had your co-dependent Abe to help you out. Go find him, let’s do it again. Sure, Robert (Nietzsche rest his soul) was there to pipe in once in awhile. And greenday, (Mr Fancypants with his PhDs) added some lucidity. I see GK and Cy are here now too. But really, this has all been done before.

You have me confused with someone else. Seriously. If you think that I or anyone else who has half a brain hasn't heard of the trinity then you are really a moron. The whole thing (trinity) doesn't make much sense to me, but to think i haven't heard of it...that is laughable.

I grew up with catholics and protestants. My family owned a boat with a catholic family. I attended church with them many times and was inquisitive about their brand of christianity.

My ex's family was UCC. I attended church with them too many times to count..including many a sermon that left me quite cold about how they viewed non christians.

So, please stop embarrassing yourself.

You know ever intricacy? Really? LOL

Abe help me out? Again you have me confused. Abe and I rarely saw i to eye...and he was one who belittled anyone who believed in religion..not me.

O.K. otown, whatever you say. Your post above is literally a replay of what we have already discussed. The UCC is not Christian....ring a bell?

[SkinBasket]

You fuckers are totally queering up the faggot thread with all your words.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

United Church of Christ isn't christian?

I'll be sure to let them know. Should we take them to court for false advertising as they pretty much state they are: Christian, Reformed, Congregational and Evangelical.

Are all Protestant churches not christian?

Who determines who is christian? Please let me know which branches of "christianity" aren't christian.

Bell: Not really.

[HowardRoark]

United Church of Christ isn't christian?

I'll be sure to let them know. Should we take them to court for false advertising as they pretty much state they are: Christian, Reformed, Congregational and Evangelical.

Are all Protestant churches not christian?

Who determines who is christian? Please let me know which branches of "christianity" aren't christian.

Bell: Not really.

http://www.rockjwalker.com/images/photos/Escher-DrawingHands.jpg

[Tyrone Bigguns]

United Church of Christ isn't christian?

I'll be sure to let them know. Should we take them to court for false advertising as they pretty much state they are: Christian, Reformed, Congregational and Evangelical.

Are all Protestant churches not christian?

Who determines who is christian? Please let me know which branches of "christianity" aren't christian.

Bell: Not really.

http://www.rockjwalker.com/images/photos/Escher-DrawingHands.jpg

I was being serious. Why are they not christian..and please let me know which other branches aren't. I want to correctly identify the wrong ones.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You fuckers are totally queering up the faggot thread with all your words.

i'm just sweet talking him into bed. That make you feel better?

[BallHawk]

Why, for example, could polygamy be argued for and defended with the SAME arguments used to defend homosexual marriage? Or incest? Or any number of different arrangements?

1. In most cases incest and polygamy occur in heterosexual people. They are sexually "normal" by nature, they just choose to take it to an unacceptable height.

2. How many polygamists are there in the US? Now, how many homosexuals are there in the US?

[MJZiggy]

But how many polygamists would there be if they thought they could get away with it? :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Why, for example, could polygamy be argued for and defended with the SAME arguments used to defend homosexual marriage? Or incest? Or any number of different arrangements?

1. In most cases incest and polygamy occur in heterosexual people. They are sexually "normal" by nature, they just choose to take it to an unacceptable height.

2. How many polygamists are there in the US? Now, how many homosexuals are there in the US?

Unacceptable heights for polygamy? I use to respect you!!!

If anything, there is no reason to outlaw polygamy. Especially since it is a religious practice.

[BallHawk]

I was mainly referring to incest, not polygamy.

I believe that polygamy is morally wrong, but I don't think there is a strong case against it. It's going on the biblical definition of marriage......um, seperation of Church and State.

Hell, I think beastiality should be legal.

Govt should keep its head out of two things: Marriage and Sex.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I was mainly referring to incest, not polygamy.

I believe that polygamy is morally wrong, but I don't think there is a strong case against it. It's going on the biblical definition of marriage......um, seperation of Church and State.

Hell, I think beastiality should be legal.

Govt should keep its head out of two things: Marriage and Sex.

Why do you think polygamy is morally wrong?

[MJZiggy]

He asks about that and not the bestiality...what if the animal has a headache that night?

[BallHawk]

I was mainly referring to incest, not polygamy.

I believe that polygamy is morally wrong, but I don't think there is a strong case against it. It's going on the biblical definition of marriage......um, seperation of Church and State.

Hell, I think beastiality should be legal.

Govt should keep its head out of two things: Marriage and Sex.

Why do you think polygamy is morally wrong?

My personal belief, I believe marriage should be one man and one woman.

That's it. Morally wrong, IMO. I'm not one to judge others, though. Thus my reasoning that govt. should stay out.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

He asks about that and not the bestiality...what if the animal has a headache that night?

What if I have a headache and the animal wants to get it on? :lol:

[BallHawk]

He asks about that and not the bestiality...what if the animal has a headache that night?

What if I have a headache and the animal wants to get it on? :lol:

It depends how expensive the horse is.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

He asks about that and not the bestiality...what if the animal has a headache that night?

What if I have a headache and the animal wants to get it on? :lol:

It depends how expensive the horse is.

What if the horse bought me an expensive dinner? Do i owe the horse sexual gratification?

[BallHawk]

He asks about that and not the bestiality...what if the animal has a headache that night?

What if I have a headache and the animal wants to get it on? :lol:

It depends how expensive the horse is.

What if the horse bought me an expensive dinner? Do i owe the horse sexual gratification?

Sounds like time for BallHawk's handy dandy "Sexual Gratification Calculation"

Take the amount of oz. your steak was + the age of the bottle of wine consumed + how many times your waiter refilled your glass of water + tip (20% of course)

Now divide that by the amount of empty parking spots in the car park of the restaurant + how many "Non-Luxury" Cars are in the parking lot.

If your number is over 10 you owe the horse some sex.

[texaspackerbacker]

The point is extremely valid.

If religious prohibitions are dismissed for homosexuality, then why not polygamy, incest, and even bestiality? You have to take pedophilia off the table because of the lack of ability for informed consent, but all the others are totally morally equivalent to homosexuality--behaviors by consenting adults in private, wrong ONLY because various religions define them as wrong.

For whatever reason, the American left has singled out homosexuality as somehow more virtuous than the others. On what grounds? It would be interesting to hear what grounds from the leftists who think that way.

[MJZiggy]

Polygamy, I don't know, could be because they wind up with pressure for very young girls to marry old men, but that's just what I've seen in the ones that make the news. Otherwise, if women choose to marry up and are ok sharing, what do I care? Incest is illegal because it produces offspring with genetic problems such as hemophilia, and though we're joking about the horse, really how do you get consent from an animal? If the animal doesn't want it, and interspecies relations are uncommon to say the least, how can you think that that sheep is ok with ol' Murphy? Then it just becomes a cruelty to animals charge.

Homosexuals, however can and often do consent. They have physical differences from straight men, namely enlargements of the hypothalamus. Are you suggesting that they choose to have enlarged hypothalami?

[mraynrand]

really how do you get consent from an animal?

Flowers, sweet talk, kibbles and bits.

[bobblehead]

Polygamy, I don't know, could be because they wind up with pressure for very young girls to marry old men, but that's just what I've seen in the ones that make the news. Otherwise, if women choose to marry up and are ok sharing, what do I care? Incest is illegal because it produces offspring with genetic problems such as hemophilia, and though we're joking about the horse, really how do you get consent from an animal? If the animal doesn't want it, and interspecies relations are uncommon to say the least, how can you think that that sheep is ok with ol' Murphy? Then it just becomes a cruelty to animals charge.

Homosexuals, however can and often do consent. They have physical differences from straight men, namely enlargements of the hypothalamus. Are you suggesting that they choose to have enlarged hypothalami?

so...if genetic testing allows for aborting "flawed" babies then you are ok with incest? If someone wants to marry their sister its cool with you? I'm just asking, not arguing mind you. What about someone like sarah palin who has no problem raising a handicapped child, should she be not allowed to marry her brother? Wait a minute, what is wrong with having a handicapped child anyway and why should we try and avoid it. I have made the case that gays should be allowed a union, but not to adopt, would you agree with me then, or is it ok for gays to adopt, but not ok for a couple to have children if they have a higher chance of having a downs syndrome baby.

How about autism...if you have an autistic kid the odds are MUCH higher that the second child would be autistic. Should couples with autistic children be not allowed to have more children...the odds are actually higher for that than a brother sister having a retarded child. I'm just asking mind you.

[Harlan Huckleby]

really how do you get consent from an animal?

Flowers, sweet talk, kibbles and bits.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/716H99B81DL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.gif

I thought about you as I was looking through this book. (I think the cig is a nice touch.)

I do not think about you often.

[MJZiggy]

Polygamy, I don't know, could be because they wind up with pressure for very young girls to marry old men, but that's just what I've seen in the ones that make the news. Otherwise, if women choose to marry up and are ok sharing, what do I care? Incest is illegal because it produces offspring with genetic problems such as hemophilia, and though we're joking about the horse, really how do you get consent from an animal? If the animal doesn't want it, and interspecies relations are uncommon to say the least, how can you think that that sheep is ok with ol' Murphy? Then it just becomes a cruelty to animals charge.

Homosexuals, however can and often do consent. They have physical differences from straight men, namely enlargements of the hypothalamus. Are you suggesting that they choose to have enlarged hypothalami?

so...if genetic testing allows for aborting "flawed" babies then you are ok with incest? If someone wants to marry their sister its cool with you? I'm just asking, not arguing mind you. What about someone like sarah palin who has no problem raising a handicapped child, should she be not allowed to marry her brother? Wait a minute, what is wrong with having a handicapped child anyway and why should we try and avoid it. I have made the case that gays should be allowed a union, but not to adopt, would you agree with me then, or is it ok for gays to adopt, but not ok for a couple to have children if they have a higher chance of having a downs syndrome baby.

How about autism...if you have an autistic kid the odds are MUCH higher that the second child would be autistic. Should couples with autistic children be not allowed to have more children...the odds are actually higher for that than a brother sister having a retarded child. I'm just asking mind you.

Downs syndrome isn't the issue, it's hemopilia, which has a funny tendency to make the child bleed to death from routine little cuts. I don't think it has a genetic test (though admittedly I could be wrong on that).

I am also not for aborting babies with defects. That decision lies with the parents alone. I am not speaking to my views on incest, merely stating why the law against it was instituted in the first place. Remember royal families used to intermarry all the time--with predictable results.

And you can't compare a disease like hemophilia which kills people to a disease like autism which doesn't.

[Deputy Nutz]

really how do you get consent from an animal?

Flowers, sweet talk, kibbles and bits.

A little Animal Planet before bed, and whamo, you're inside a canine.

[MJZiggy]

You guys'll put that thing anywhere, won't you...

[Deputy Nutz]

You guys'll put that thing anywhere, won't you...

Bend over and I'll show you.

[Jimx29]

Of course they should be allowed to marry. Why should us straights be the only ones that suffer?

[mraynrand]

Of course they should be allowed to marry. Why should us straights be the only ones that suffer? :rs: