WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Considering how human society has been devolving for some years now, I'd be down with banning everybody from having sex.
If its just love, why shouldnt incest be ok?
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
Considering how human society has been devolving for some years now, I'd be down with banning everybody from having sex.
WizardofOz
New member
Agreed. That's why I added the (adult) qualifier.
Do you think the mother and son from the OP should face jail?
Now that same-sex marriage is legal I don't see any legal basis...
gcthomas
New member
Nope, me neither. Let them fill their boots.
I don't ee jail as really fixing anything. They've already made martyrs of themselves, or at least the woman. What they need is a mutual restraining order.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
sure, why not?
nope
horsewhipping in the public square and 24 hours in the stocks
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
The Lord’s approach would be better, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Just fill in whomever for “her,” as is the case, gather together a group from the Religion and ECT forums, give them this directive, then just watch all the rocks fly, at once.
glassjester
Well-known member
Are people who disregard their family's disapproval, accept social rejection, and (at certain times and places) risk imprisonment - for the sake of a homosexual relationship - "clearly psychologically obsessed" ?
Of course it pertains to me...it pertains to everyone. It's a constant vigil.
Why would you ever think otherwise?
(You seem to persist in the folly that you're a solitary acting agent separated from the remainder of a seemingly hostile universe. Nothing could be further from the truth.)
gcthomas
New member
Are people who disregard their family's disapproval, accept social rejection, and (at certain times and places) risk imprisonment - for the sake of a heterosexual relationship - "clearly psychologically obsessed" ?
And you present a double standard.
And here is that double standard again.
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. Susan B. Anthony
Are people who disregard their family's disapproval, accept social rejection, and (at certain times and places) risk imprisonment - for the sake of being a Christian - "clearly psychologically obsessed" ?
PureX
Well-known member
They may be. But that would have nothing to do with homosexuality, itself. It would just be one person obsessing on another. Some heterosexuals will fall into the same pathology. The point, here, is that the mental obsession is mental illness. Not "sin". And sexual orientation doesn't change that.
:dizzy:
Quote chapter and verse when God’s moral law ever changed (2 Pe 2:1).
Queue jeopardy theme (right click, open).
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you [Deut. 22:20–21].
"Suppose the woman was guilty. Then she was to be stoned.
Today people talk about the “new” morality and consider sex apart from marriage a great step forward. God gave a standard of morality to His people, Israel. God–given morality has always been a blessing to any nation. Any nation that has broken over at this point has gone down. When I think of this, and when I think of the condition of my country, I weep. Under God’s law to Israel, a person guilty of adultery was stoned to death, whether man or woman. If we did that here in Southern California, there would be so many rock piles it would be impossible to drive a car through this part of the country.
God honors marriage and God honors sexual purity. Adultery in Israel was to be punished by stoning. This tells us how God feels about adultery, friends. Remember that God’s love for His people is expressed in His Law. This law regarding the protection of the sanctity of marriage is a very fine example of His love and concern for the human family." McGee, J. V. (1991). Thru the Bible commentary: The Law (Deuteronomy) (electronic ed., Vol. 9, p. 143). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
"Deut 22:22–29 Adultery was punished by death for the two found in the act. If the adulterous persons were a man with a woman who was pledged to be married to someone else, this consensual act led to the death of both parties (vv. 23, 24). However, if the man forced (i.e., raped) the woman, then only the man’s life was required (vv. 25–27). If the woman was a virgin not pledged in marriage, then the man had to pay a fine, marry the girl, and keep her as his wife as long as he lived (vv. 28, 29)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 281). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.
Let me break it down for you, you extravagant moron:
What good did women do in ancient times besides bear children?
A women can't do jack without a man in those conditions. What, the whole of society is going to readjust to secure the mentality of an unclean woman? These weren't virgins or betrothed women- men were put to death for raping them. These women were harlots
gcthomas
New member
Oh, that mysterious natural that just happens to coincide with your religious dogma? And are you sure that natural = good?
Perhaps you'd like to reject antibiotics (unnatural) for tuberculosis (natural)? Vaccines (unnatural) for tetanus (natural)? Are you in favour or earthquakes and hurricanes, as they are oh so natural?
Natural ≠ good, and it never has. Humanity has advanced largely because we have managed to tame the raw nature that killed so many of our ancestors.
Eew :granite: Rom. 1:24–32
God Is Good (All The Time) ~ Chester Baldwin Ps 19:7
The wickedness of Sodom ([Ex 20:14]
of course you do. You want to hold that a sexual act is intrinsically opposed to either the unitive or procreative aspect of sex, then the act is immoral but you set up different yardsticks for different couples. Couple A and couple B are both incapable of producing a child. Both couples engage in sexual activities. You condemn couple A as engaging in "personal, physical gratification," but give couple B a pass when they do the same thing.