I was unaware that "beastiality" was a major preoccupation in the bedrooms of the nation!
Three Men Marry (each other) in Colombia
- Thread starter glassjester
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Dunno about bestiality, but pedophilia is estimated to be about ten times more prevalent in the general population than homosexuality
By your own definition, Abraham and Sari were engaged in rape, because as their slave, Hagar was not in a position to provide consent!
Its the height of arrogance that conservatives continually assume the rest of us should accept these kinds of statements without any thought of providing reliable sources!
Aren't you from Canada?
glassjester
Well-known member
Major or not - should the government stop even one single person from engaging in it?
glassjester
Well-known member
Maybe. I'm not sure what rights concubines had, if any.
glassjester
Well-known member
But do you care what the Bible says, jgarden?
glassjester
Well-known member
If you do, jgarden, then it may be worth noting that God did not command Abram to sleep with Hagar. In fact, later on in Genesis God tells Abraham that it is Sarah who will bear a son, and be the mother of many nations - with Abraham as their father.
It was not God's will that Abram should father a child with Hagar. This was Sarai and Abram's own silly idea. Abram is still a human, and though he was righteous, remember that Scripture teaches that all men have sinned. He was not impeccable.
Trump and many American conservatives wanted to repeal Obamacare leaving millions of citizens with pre-existing conditions with an uncertain medical future - but "glassjester's" priorities would have the government "stop even one single person from engaging" in a sexual practice which may/may not be a problem and is limited to the confines of one's bedroom!
For someone who presumes to lecture others about the Bible, "glassjester" has an appalling lack of knowledge as to its contents!
Genesis 16 doesn't exist as testament to some "silly idea" - the angel of the Lord is not in the habit of appearing and providing instructions, unless it is all part of God's plan.
In this case, it delivered God's promise that He would "... increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count!”
Hagar was even provided with the name of the child - "Ishmael" meaning "God hears!"
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
And when Mr. Dante objected, I provided a list of several links showing pro-homosexual marriage authors publicly claiming that it would never lead to polygamy. Then Mr. Dante stopped responding.
I thought the Constitution left marriage up to the states to regulate...
Marriage was already defined as being between a man and a woman. State laws aren't a dictionaries. That's what marriage meant, prior to this same-sex nonsense.
Here's Webster's Dictionary's entry for "marriage," from 1992:
Except that now groups of men can get married in Colombia. It's only a matter of time.
You don't think laws about marriage shape the public's opinion of it?
Yep.
Didja notice he block quoted you? :chuckle:
glassjester
Well-known member
glassjester
Well-known member
God incorporates the good and the bad into His plan for good. That's very basic theology, man. It doesn't mean He wills the bad, just that He makes good of it.
Judas betrayed Christ, and God used Christ's death to redeem mankind. This does not mean that God wills betrayal or treachery - just that when they happen, He will make good of them. That's the best example of this principle, but it occurs many times throughout Scripture.
But this may be pointless to you - do you actually care what Scripture teaches about homosexuality? Yes or no?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
My frat president had a cute golden retriever puppy that would hump anybody's leg at the drop of a hat
Pretty sure that qualifies as implied consent
glassjester
Well-known member
She's finished with this thread, remember?
glassjester
Well-known member
And it's totally legal to force animals to mate, anyway. So an animal's consent doesn't matter. Even when it comes to sex.
There's almost always a shift in the willingness of a society to self-examine preceding challenges on significant Constitutional grounds. True of slavery (though less successfully) and true now. But the litmus will always be a Constitutional and not social one. Essentially, you can't open a door that you don't or won't see, but once someone walks through it an argument over its existence becomes harder to manage.
Again though, it's not being redefined. We still know exactly what we mean by marriage with or without the legal inclusion. The thing itself remains.
I doubt people entering into it considered their orientation as a part of it. It meant either a secular or religious (or likely both for most) joining of two lives to form something new and promising, as an expression of love and an intent to hold one another and that relationship apart from any other.
Again, the marriage contract is pretty explicit in terms of what it required. Those terms indicate what people considered important and necessary about it. There were any number of reasons why sexuality/gender wouldn't be a consideration, from cultural/social/contextual assumption, to religious objections, to legal impediments (homosexuality itself being outlawed in many jurisdictions) to simple phobia, etc. But no one established gender as a requirement by law. Once the assumption or bias was challenged many states scrambled to do it, but that overturns any legal tradition argument that can be advanced. Meaning the remaining arguments need another approach.
Religion isn't going to work and that was the inevitable problem with the anti side of things. Religious objection, however veiled, was largely it. Legally, to the extent you could argue it, the foundational objections were atop equally objectionable law, like laws that criminalized homosexual sex, themselves rooted in religious belief.
Worse to whom and in what way? Or, that's what many people said and believed about race mixing laws being abolished. And many of them predicated their views on faith as well.
It's varied, really. Looking at gallup data from 75 to present day there hasn't been dramatic variations. F
Let's look at the three principle divisions of opinion on abortion, highly restricted, unrestricted, and completely forbidden.
Highly restricted: In 1975, 54% of the public said abortion should be allowed only in very particular circumstances. That opinion was weakest in 94, when only 48% agreed, and strongest in 98, when around 68% agreed with that level of restriction. By 2010 it was 57% and today around 50%. Or, a little stronger today than in 75. So it's been a cycle of sorts, with the overwhelming majority of the time spent in the low 50s.
Unrestricted: in 75 that would have translated to around 22% and today it's 29%. The high point of that belief is in 94, when 34% of the public had that degree of hands off approach to the topic. So it's higher than 75 and significantly lower than 94.
Forbidden: Illegal in any circumstance was at 21% in 75 and is at 18% now. Between 91 and 99 it was at its lowest ebb, around 15%.
So it doesn't really appear that Roe has softened public opinion, which has cycled up and down since. Forbidden is three pts weaker now after 42 years, or 3% stronger than it was for nearly a decade, a couple of decades after Roe. Similarly, unrestricted is 7% higher than it was right after Roe, or 5% lower/weaker than it was in the 90s, while strict limitations is 4% weaker now than 75, or 2% stronger than it was in 94...or much weaker than 98.
Doesn't appear to be much of a causal impact.
Affronts to one expression of what a family should be. Some people wouldn't credit a family without kids. Some would have problems with interracial families. Some might object to adoptive families. But each family once denied and now allowed wouldn't see it that way.
That's peculiar to me. How can a union predicated on a lack of belief in God be sanctified? Or is it just those who have another belief in a different idea about God? And if that's the case what about homosexuals who have a different belief about what God is or sanctions?
Then keep it where it's actually parallel, with people. Dragging animals into the mix smacks of the old let's compare blacks to monkeys business. Best left alone and if you can't make the case using law and people it's not much of one to begin with, is it?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Actually the law does give a darn about animals. It's not legal in the UK to abuse animals, sexually or otherwise. I have a pet cat and if I maltreat it in any way then I'm breaking the law dude. Likewise there are laws in regards to farming livestock and the conditions cattle are kept in etc. Not sure where you're getting this notion that animals can be treat in any given manner and the law is all okay with that because it's simply not the case.