Yeah but the Bible punishes people for eating shrimp.
Still wondering if you're up for the Gay Challenge!
They simply can't logically get around the beastiality analogy.
They will try to argue that it can't be a real relationship because the animal can't choose to be in the relationship.
Thats hypocrisy at it's finest.
The double beef patties in their burger today didn't choose to be their lunch but they ate the ers anyway, choice or no choice.
The New Testament basically reverses all of the Old Testament. If you can show me where Jesus Christ said his Father's House was for everyone except _______ (for example, sexuals), please do so. Christianity, the focus of the New Testament, is about acceptance (not just tolerance) and passivity (not violence to acheive your goal).
Jesus would on today's "Conservatives." A big huge nutty , all over them.
no it doesnt
I don't think that logically follows CC. Unless you plan on eating your wife after you say your vows or something.
I mean, if you want to sleep with a dog or whatever, I really don't care if the dog doesn't.Is it weird? Disgusting? Abhorrent? Sure. But I don't care enough to send police officers to your door.
So did something happen to God between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Is Jesus's Dad still the "eye for an eye" kind of God that kicked some serious infidel/non-believer ass in the Old Testament?
What I said :
1) Lust is not an emotional connection like love.
That does not = "MiamiHeat said lust is not an emotion"
In your world, it might be.
The sacred trinity (Father, Mother, Child) is an ideal shared by billions of people, even if it takes on different forms among cultures and religions. It is the nucleus of the family, the foundation of love, human civilization, everything we know. And no, I don't mean "Father, Mother, Child" in some religious way, does not pertain to any god. It's the human sacred trinity, the family.
and my comments about human sexuality are not really conjecture. Our brains actually do release certain chemicals to reward sexual experiences. Evolution's way to encourage reproduction.
I think you may have missed the whole point of the New Testament.
This is how it works :
1) Jesus accepts anyone who comes to him and asks for forgiveness. His arms are open to all, even sexuals
HOWEVER, DO NOT STOP THERE.
2) You are supposed to STOP your sinful ways and be reborn.
This does not mean Jesus was saying, "Yeah, I accept all of you how you are"
Jesus was saying "I forgive and accept all of you, but you must accept my Father's commandments and be reborn to live a new life of purity"
So, no. s, thieves, murderers, whatever, aren't accepted to stay that way. They are supposed to repent and change.
Jesus said if someone slaps your cheek, give them the other cheek and let them slap that one too. So, definately not an eye for an eye. The only time Jesus got pissed (or so the Gospels tell us) is when people try to pass things off as being divine/of God as a way to profit/achieve power/deceive...case in point, the "Conservatives" that will be on the recieving end of the Messiah's nutty during the Rapture who have used fear to push people around and gain power for themselves.
Also, the people in the Old Testament are assholes, it's like Sin City or Kill Bill - I just can't understand why anyone would want to waste time in that negativity and use it as a base for anything when Jesus knows what the is up.
CC makes perfect logic.I don't think that logically follows CC. Unless you plan on eating your wife after you say your vows or something.
I mean, if you want to sleep with a dog or whatever, I really don't care if the dog doesn't.
I'll break it down for you :
Your steak or hamburger. Did you give the animal a choice before they snapped it's neck, chopped it up, and served it for you?
So why the should there be a "animal needs to give consent" to get married with it?
The way I look at it, a dog getting ed in the ass but living a good life with all the food she wants is a lot better than being chopped up and served.
I realize it's a little weird but try to follow me here.I don't think that logically follows CC. Unless you plan on eating your wife after you say your vows or something.
I mean, if you want to sleep with a dog or whatever, I really don't care if the dog doesn't.
TLong loves his sheep and wants to marry her. The law says he can't. Based on the logic of the new ruling he should be able to marry her, even if it's not conventional, otherwise the law would not be giving him equal protection.
Want to argue that the sheep must be able to give consent to the relationship with TLong? OK. So in what other specific areas does the sheep have the right of choice/consent? TLong can legally kill and eat his sheep without her consent. Thats OK. But TLong can't legally have sex with his sheep and marry her? Because Why again? The Sheep can't consent?
Do you not see the inconsistency of the argument?
Nope, it's not weird CC. I understood you from the get go.
If someone then wants to say, "but it's weird/wrong, humans-cows are not the same species" or any other reason,
then they will realize what the we are on about when we say Marriage = man and woman......... and that man/man is weird/wrong/same gender
It's easy to follow the flow "Yeah, we should do whatever we want, rights to live however we like!@!!!"
and never stop to think about the damage it does
It's just flawed thinking. The sacred family (Father/Mother/Child) should be kept intact and untainted.
If the bestiality analogy can apply to sexual sex, then it can be applied to all forms of recreational heterosexual sex as well. That's why it's a stupid analogy that only stupid people use.
I honestly have no issues with gays doing their thing or Tlong banging his sheep. I just draw the line at calling it a "marriage".
But logic or no logic we are still gonna get called bigots.
pardon me?
Did you hear me trying to control anyones sex life? If David Carradine wants to hang himself by his junk then it's OK with me.
I believe the discussion was "marriage".
"Bestiality" is sex with animals, not marriage with animals. And MH is clearly comparing sex with animals to sex between two men or women. If you're not, fine, but the analogy is still irrelevant. If you're against Tlong marrying his sheep then fight that battle when it actually becomes a realistic possibility.
You still aren't understanding me.
I could care less what their sexual habits are.
I'm saying that the same legal logic currently being applied to same sex marriage also applies to beast marriage.
It all becomes the same when everyones beliefs are equally protected and coddled.
Party on, Garth!
Yeah, no.
Consent. Consent. Consent. Animals can't give it. Consent is a requirement for marriage.
Game over.
Consent.
No, you're saying the flaw in that logic can be excused by the fact that we eat animals. That doesn't make the analogy logical. Nor does it make the legalization of Beast Marriage a realistic possibility.
So consent in animals ONLY applies to marriage/sex? Says who? The same people that said marriage is only between a man and a woman?
Be consistent guys.
When you see a court case that states pieces of property can enter into contracts let me know. When you see a court case that states contracts can be entered into without consent let me know.
So you mean you want to stick with current accepted stances on this issue, and not change anything?
Phew, then this whole gay marriage ordeal is over.
Thanks
It has nothing to do with "currently accepted stances" but whether or not animals are given the same rights in the cons ution as sexuals.
Its amazing how far you guys reach.
You could equally state that neither party dissents to the arrangement either.
Therefore, TLong is not receiving equal treatment under the law.
The gay marriage stance was not accepted. It was fought, and your side lost. We'll fight the bestiality issue when we get there. Which we won't.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote