Tri-sodomite "marriage"

quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
GFR7 said:
Pushing an agenda, and being punitive to those who will not toe the party line.
Click to expand...

Sound like politics in general....though morally denigrating a particular segment of society to further a special interested cause, may just be your cup of tea.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
quip said:
I wouldn't know... when put to the task, you tend to levy insult and accusation in lieu of a substantive discourse.
Click to expand...

No, I don't tend to that at all. It comes in lieu of a few specific debates, one being abortion. I suppose it outweighs other threads. I've agreed with you on a few political threads and have told you so. Again, I'm sure the mellow is completely lost against the backdrop of heavier topics.

The Mormons and others who think polygamy is a good idea are going to be happy. The slope for marriage definition is indeed slippery once redefinition occurs. Somebody's cat is going to be very wealthy, with an estate that provides for caregivers until death. The cat will not leave it to kittens.

For society, marriage doesn't matter any more, it is about taxes and estates as far as concern. The animals won't get it simply because government won't allow those $'s to go that direction when they can have it without protest (my supposition anyway). Polygamy and bigamy are next, I think, to come off the illegal books.
-Lon
 
quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
Lon said:
No, I don't tend to that at all. It comes in lieu of a few specific debates, one being abortion. I suppose it outweighs other threads. I've agreed with you on a few political threads and have told you so. Again, I'm sure the mellow is completely lost against the backdrop of heavier topics.

-Lon
Click to expand...

Exactly, you seem to lose perspective and get reactive when the issue of abortion rears its ugly head...hence the implication within this very thread.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
quip said:
Exactly, you seem to lose perspective and get reactive when the issue of abortion rears its ugly head...hence the implication within this very thread.
Click to expand...
:nono: It is not at all a loss of perspective, but rather full within it. It's a punishment fitting the crime type of prospect, in this case the rebuttal fitting the topic AND the sentiments concerning it. I'm not on your side on this particular discussion either, can't be. Abortion is nearer holocaust atrocity whereas this topic is some other WW2 concern by association, perhaps front-lines.
 
quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
Lon said:
:nono: It is not at all a loss of perspective, but rather full within it. It's a punishment fitting the crime type of prospect, in this case the rebuttal fitting the topic AND the sentiments concerning it. I'm not on your side on this particular discussion either, can't be. Abortion is nearer holocaust atrocity whereas this topic is some other WW2 concern by association, perhaps front-lines.
Click to expand...

No loss of perspective...yet, here in a homosexual marriage thread you're voicing "fitting punishment" to the self-adjudicated crime of abortion . Sorry Lon if I seem far from impressed nor convinced.

Do these "fitting punishment" views likewise complement your aversion to homosexuality?
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
The Woman Caught in the Adultery: John 8

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group

4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.

5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”

6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his fihger

7 then they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Click to expand...
Tri-sodomite "marriage"

The real question is what it was that Jesus wrote on the ground - given that He never wrote a single word in the New Testament, nor did He instruct His disciples to record the events of His life.
 
zoo22

zoo22

Well-known member
I'd wondered why folks here at TOL didn't get all squeaky about slippery slopes when last year, a conservative (Bush appointed) judge struck down part of Utah's anti-polygamy law, ruling in favor of Christian's "sincere religious belief" in polygamy.

It was one of the high-profile news stories I'd noticed was glaringly absent at TOL.

"While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our religious beliefs."

Utah judge strikes down part of state's polygamy ban in Sister Wives ruling
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
quip said:
No loss of perspective...yet, here in a homosexual marriage thread you're voicing "fitting punishment" to the self-adjudicated crime of abortion . Sorry Lon if I seem far from impressed nor convinced.

Do these "fitting punishment" views likewise complement your aversion to homosexuality?
Click to expand...
"Punishment" should have been no further than analogy allowed :( It isn't "Punishment" but "addressing points and posts according to their importance," thus not punishment, but the degree of response fitting the topic at hand. "Punishment fitting the Crime" was not but analogous. Perhaps "Majoring on Majors and Minoring on Minors," but such would have conveyed that this might not have been an important thread. Let's call it my failed communication. I'll take the hit on this misunderstanding, and apologies. Not only that, even your own expressions change according to specific subject matter. It really isn't important to me to impress anything or convince you of anything, so you can keep it as you like. I gave you reason why there appears a difference (I'm merely answering the inquiry and observation).
Certainly you can accept it or reject it as you take it. I think I even empathize as to your skepticism, Shoot, I'm going on and on just telling you it is of negligible consequence.
-Lon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top