there was a good reason to make rape victims marry their rapists?
Then shouldn't you be taking this up with theophilus?
If its just love, why shouldnt incest be ok?
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
Then shouldn't you be taking this up with theophilus?
So it has nothing to do with the topic at hand
Then any relationship could be used in comparison to incestuous relationships.
I.E. if you agree with interracial relationships but NOT incest, why one is then ok and not the other
or if you agree with interreligious relationships but NOT incest, why one is then ok and not the other
or...well you get the idea.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
so we can get rid of those laws against murder and stealing?
no kidding :duh:
you're a hell-bound retard
well, yeah :idunno:
horn said:
we have laws against pedophilia and manage to enforce them without doing that :idunno:
You have assumed some sort of connection between American law and the bible
ClimateSanity
New member
I'm not familiar with the story , but if God was directly responsible for it, yes, there was very good reason for it. I haven't looked at , but if it's like the rest of the supposed outrages, there is always more than meets the eye.
ClimateSanity
New member
How did you arrive at that conclusion? I can smell a sock puppet strongly here.
ClimateSanity
New member
Yes. Any relationship where sexual conduct is involved. What is your standard for making judgements?
ClimateSanity
New member
There is a very strong connection between American law and the bible ....at least there was from the time of the colonies until progressivism took root.
I personally think the age of consent should be sixteen. That's what it is in Alabama, and I'm almost positive the reason why eighteen is so universal is because it just makes things more simple- that's when one becomes a legal adult, so let it be the ~magical age~.
The big backlash to that is obvious: 21 year old dating a 17 year old? Let's ruin his life
lain:However, some states have what's called 'Romeo and Juliet' laws to counter this problem, where there must be over a four year gap in age. In which case, the above example is legitimate.
How does this exclude hetero-based love?
glassjester
Well-known member
Depends on your standard, doesn't it?
If you believe sexual relationships should be ordered toward the good of potential offspring, then sex should take place between a loving, committed, heterosexual couple.
If you believe sexual relationships should be ordered toward personal, physical gratification, then sex should take place between anyone and anything that enjoys it.
Lon
Well-known member
Er, you mean not any more.
If the dichotomy was clearly that black and white then this might hold a point.
Though, this is not why A4T was asking the question...thus your point's a mere red herring.
glassjester
Well-known member
So, you only have sex for procreative purposes? I don't think so.
That argument is tired and weak...get another one.
Yes..it's not.
The Catholic Church has in mind that a married couple should have unprotected sex and procreate all they can until they can't anymore. That's why you see all those Latin folk with like eight kids
lain:
The Catholic Church has in mind that a married couple should have unprotected sex and procreate all they can until they can't anymore. That's why you see all those Latin folk with like eight kids
So, they never enjoy the act of sex...it's an exclusively godly duty?!
This paragraph has red alert warning signs all over it. If a couple, no matter what their relationship or gender is are "in love", is that superior to the couple who are "in lust"?
You've never answered any of my posts elsewhere, how about answering this one?