What if Jesus was gay?

gopostal · Aug 9, 2012

cryptophreak said:
I hardly think incest is comparable to man-on-donkey marriage.

Why not? This is precisely what I was asking. Once you use "what I want to do" as your measuring rod then why is it then illogical to consider incest, bestiality, or even to marry your car? Mine is a Honda though so I think I'll just keep it platonic for now. <insert 'riding' joke here>

The point is I'd just like someone to tell me where the limits are and why. I've clearly shown you mine: marriage is between one man and one woman. This seriously limits your choices (I guess) but there is no illogical consideration. In fact the logical conclusion of this relationship is other little people conceived in the righteousness of the union.

Change it to same-sex or mess with the natural setup of things and then all sorts of issues develop. The minute eyebrows start to raise in a person...well that should tell you that you have gone off the road and into the shoulder.

Lizard Of Oz · Aug 9, 2012

gopostal said:
The point is I'd just like someone to tell me where the limits are and why. .

Two consenting adults of sufficient genetic separation.

Because they have the experience and capacity to make intelligent and informed decisions about their own lives. A donkey and your Honda lack these traits. Only "two" because the legal ramifications concerning inheritance, survivor benefits, medical and legal proxy, etc... become way too complex in a poly-marriage to be defined by a simple marriage. "Sufficient genetic separation" is to prevent homozygosity (which leads to inbreeding depression).

Now, tell me why you oppose it. How does it affect you in any way, shape or form? No one is going make you marry that boy next door that you find so damned cute. No one is gong make your Priest/Pastor/Minister/Rabbi/ marry "Adam and Steve". "Adam and Steve" will go to a courthouse or find a less bigoted church.

.

HugoMarques · Aug 9, 2012

* Looks at last 2 pages *

I thought we were talking about Jesus...

Lizard Of Oz · Aug 9, 2012

HugoMarques said:
* Looks at last 2 pages *

I thought we were talking about Jesus...

Little known fact: Jesus was married to Simon the Zealot.

cryptophreak · Aug 9, 2012

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
LOL yeah I don't think so.

incest is a bad idea no matter how you slice it.
you shouldn't want to fuck your sister. doesn't matter how hot she is.

Why? Hint: The mere fact that you and I don't want to doesn't count.

gopostal said:
The minute eyebrows start to raise in a person...well that should tell you that you have gone off the road and into the shoulder.

Then we should ban all activities, lest we offend anyone who has ever lived.

Lizard Of Oz said:
Only "two" because the legal ramifications concerning inheritance, survivor benefits, medical and legal proxy, etc... become way too complex in a poly-marriage to be defined by a simple marriage.

Challenge accepted.

Lizard Of Oz said:
"Sufficient genetic separation" is to prevent homozygosity (which leads to inbreeding depression).

Why should this affect couples who don't plan to procreate?

Lizard Of Oz · Aug 9, 2012

cryptophreak said:
Why should this affect couples who don't plan to procreate?

Okay, I take that part back. You can marry your sister if you want. Inbreeding is going to happen regardless of marital status... and probably at the same level.

Ideally it would be "Two consenting adults", but if legal documents can be drawn up prior to marriage that defines roles regarding inheritance, survivor benefits, medical and legal proxy, etc... then... Let's just say "consenting adults", but I sense many a contentious court battles in their future.

.

gopostal · Aug 9, 2012

Wow...See, this is my point. Crypto types one sentence and all the sudden you have a fundamental shift in your belief system. One minute incest is bad and 10 words later you now find it completely acceptable.

Also the fact that you guys feel that the 'state' must be involved in this shows why the concept of civil union is problematic from the outset. The state need not be involved in marriage other than to oversee the interests of the children of a divorcing couple. Marriage is not an interest of the state, it's an interest of the church and the adults involved. This is one area where proper separation of church and state has not been kept, but that's mostly due to an out of control legal system.

Jacks:Revenge · Aug 9, 2012

gopostal said:
Once you use "what I want to do" as your measuring rod then why is it then illogical to consider incest, bestiality, or even to marry your car?

that's bullshit.
the pro-gay marriage argument is NOT "let them do whatever they want to do." that's a Strawman and you know it.

the pro-gay marriage argument is simple.
2 consenting adult men or women who are in love deserve to be married.

all the usual rules still apply.
incest is illegal, bestiality is illegal, etc etc.

don't be stupid.

In fact the logical conclusion of this relationship is other little people conceived in the righteousness of the union.

this is also bullshit.

it's the 21st century.
it's 2012.
there's going to be 10 billion people in the world before we know it.

marriage is not just for procreation anymore.
to view it as nothing other than an official license for a woman to lie on her back and pop out babies is ignorant and outdated.

Change it to same-sex or mess with the natural setup of things and then all sorts of issues develop.

says who?

it's only the hyper-religious that see a slippery slope.
normal people realize that gay marriage is not going to suddenly undo the fabric of society. nothing is really going to change. the world as you know it will not start to collapse just because fags wear matching wedding bands.

get over yourself.

cryptophreak said:
Why? Hint: The mere fact that you and I don't want to doesn't count.

don't be obtuse.

incest is fundamentally against the laws of nature.
incest produces genetic corruption which leads to all sorts of immuno-deficienies and other disorders.

playing devil's advocate is going to get you nowhere in this case.

gopostal said:
Marriage is not an interest of the state, it's an interest of the church

and why is marriage an interest of the church?

if you think the state should stay out of marriage, then the church should stay even further.

cryptophreak · Aug 9, 2012

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
incest produces genetic corruption which leads to all sorts of immuno-deficienies and other disorders.

This doesn't address couples who do not intend to procreate.

I could be said to be playing devil's advocate in this sense only:

Gay marriage is one of those trick arguments. Marriage should not be a legal institution. That's the argument you should be having.

If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it?

Would you go. "Baby! This shit we got together, It's so good, we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment tweest us. we need judges and lawyers involved in this shit."

Lizard Of Oz · Aug 9, 2012

gopostal said:
Wow...See, this is my point. Crypto types one sentence and all the sudden you have a fundamental shift in your belief system. One minute incest is bad and 10 words later you now find it completely acceptable.

Also the fact that you guys feel that the 'state' must be involved in this shows why the concept of civil union is problematic from the outset. The state need not be involved in marriage other than to oversee the interests of the children of a divorcing couple. Marriage is not an interest of the state, it's an interest of the church and the adults involved. This is one area where proper separation of church and state has not been kept, but that's mostly due to an out of control legal system.

It was a joke.

I guess I should have stuck in a bunch of smilies to make it more obvious.

In other news Jesus was not married to Simon the Zealot.

Anyway...

I stand behind my position... "Two consenting adults of sufficient genetic separation."

And, marriage is a legal matter for all the reasons I listed above; inheritance, survivor benefits, medical and legal proxy, child custody, etc... The church has absolutely no business getting involve in any of those issues.
The actual church ceremony is a meaningless hold-over from the bad old superstitious days when people believed a god was watching and cared.

<---smilie - indicating the last sentence was a joke (mostly).

You still haven't answered the question. How does the marriage of two gay strangers hurt you? Or, do you plan to stick to that "slippery slope" nonsense?

Question from the past that you ignored. Is not having the government define marriage based on the Bible's (vague) definition unconstitutional?

.

Jacks:Revenge · Aug 9, 2012

cryptophreak said:
This doesn't address couples who do not intend to procreate.

yes but we both know that 99% of married couples are having sex.
period.

to say that we should allow incest because some of them might not have children is absurd.

cryptophreak · Aug 10, 2012

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
to say that we should allow incest because some of them might not have children is absurd.

Actually I'm saying we should allow incest because it's none of our business what others decide to do with each other.

There is also the matter of non-procreative sex which invalidates black-and-white claims about birth defects, but that is a side issue.

Jacks:Revenge · Aug 10, 2012

cryptophreak said:
birth defects, but that is a side issue.

it's not a side issue.
it's the whole issue.

we can't guarantee that incestuous couples won't have children.
so in this case, the 'none of our business' angle does not fly.

it absolutely IS societies business to protect children who cannot protect themselves.
incestuous couples that might birth their own children will cause those children harm by way of unavoidable birth defects.

incest isn't just wrong because we know it is, it is wrong thanks to the very programming of nature. aside from the birth defects, blood relatives tend to avoid physical attraction due to incompatible pheromones. everything in nature is telling us to avoid fucking our sister. we should probably listen.

you're really barking up the wrong tree on this issue.
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not apply to incest.

Zur · Aug 10, 2012

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
incest isn't just wrong because we know it is, it is wrong thanks to the very programming of nature. aside from the birth defects, blood relatives tend to avoid physical attraction due to incompatible pheromones. everything in nature is telling us to avoid fucking our sister. we should probably listen.

you're really barking up the wrong tree on this issue.
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not apply to incest.

I'm with this guy.

[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt2MIB8oCK0[/m]

Al · Aug 10, 2012

Gay marriage is one of those trick arguments. Marriage should not be a legal institution. That's the argument you should be having.

If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it?

Would you go. "Baby! This shit we got together, It's so good, we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment tweest us. we need judges and lawyers involved in this shit."

Tosh?

gopostal · Aug 10, 2012

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
it's the 21st century.
it's 2012.
there's going to be 10 billion people in the world before we know it.

None of that has a single thing to do with a logical position in this argument. Logic does not change dependent on what year it is or what the total population is. Either something is logically right or wrong, period.

You still haven't answered the question. How does the marriage of two gay strangers hurt you?

Nowhere in here have I said it hurts me, or even that I'm especially offended. I'm quite simply stating that I think it's morally wrong because it's illogical. I keep asking if the defining characteristic of this belief is "if I want to as an adult" because aside from that I don't see much else. If that is indeed the case it's obvious that there are serious problems right from the start. Desire cannot be a measurement of something's correctness.

Let's define marriage if you really want to open the worm can. It's interesting as anything to me to see the debate over the position line coming from your side. Some are using a desire yardstick, some are using a biological imperative. It's honestly a little messy looking from this side, but that happens when you seek to redefine something as obvious as this issue. You have to manufacture your position then try to fit the details wherever they work.

Fundamental Christian apologists get it wrong by defaulting to moralistic high ground. I won't do that. If I have a viewpoint expressed here I'll back it up with logic and not passages from the Bible (germane as they may be). That won't work for you guys anyway, you need to see where the rubber meets the road and nothing less will do.

N1ghtmare · Aug 10, 2012

But what exactly do you see as illogical with gay marriage? Their genes tell them to love people of the same sex. It is inherent in their biology.

Jacks:Revenge · Aug 10, 2012

gopostal said:
None of that has a single thing to do with a logical position in this argument. Logic does not change dependent on what year it is or what the total population is. Either something is logically right or wrong, period.

what the hell are you talking about?
you can't even keep your own argument straight.

you're the one who said "the logical conclusion of this relationship is other little people conceived."
you're the one who introduced the idea that marriage is logically based on procreation. those are your words.

the current situation on planet Earth factors into this logic whether you like it or not. and the situation is clear; there's already enough people around to sustain the species indefinitely. marriage is not about procreation anymore. it's a union between 2 consenting adults who love each other and wish to protect each other (legally speaking).

I'm quite simply stating that I think it's morally wrong because it's illogical.

oh look, more ignorant bullshit.
surprise surprise.

as Nightmare has just pointed out, homosexuals were born that way.
no man chooses to suck dick because he enjoys the lifestyle. no woman chooses to lick pussy just because she enjoys the lifestyle. these people were born this way; their brains are wired this way.
nature produces homosexual tendency in animals. numerous fauna have been observed to engage in same-sex behavior. humans are animals just like anything else and we are prone to nature's imperfect chemistry.

homosexuality might technically be an anomaly, but that doesn't mean homosexual people are evil or that homosexuality is any more "wrong" or "immoral" than Asperger syndrome.
by your (poor) logic, we should condemn anyone born with a mental disorder and strip them of their human rights just because they don't follow the standard model.

If I have a viewpoint expressed here I'll back it up with logic and not passages from the Bible

well unfortunately your logic is shit.

gopostal · Aug 10, 2012

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
what the hell are you talking about?
you can't even keep your own argument straight.

you're the one who said "the logical conclusion of this relationship is other little people conceived."
you're the one who introduced the idea that marriage is logically based on procreation. those are your words.

the current situation on planet Earth factors into this logic whether you like it or not. and the situation is clear; there's already enough people around to sustain the species indefinitely. marriage is not about procreation anymore. it's a union between 2 consenting adults who love each other and wish to protect each other (legally speaking).

Marriage has always and will always be about family and procreation. You cannot redefine it, you can only seek to create an alternative and that's what is happening. To no big surprise the endeavor is full of contradictions from the outset.

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
oh look, more ignorant bullshit.
surprise surprise.

as Nightmare has just pointed out, homosexuals were born that way.
no man chooses to suck dick because he enjoys the lifestyle. no woman chooses to lick pussy just because she enjoys the lifestyle. these people were born this way; their brains are wired this way.
nature produces homosexual tendency in animals. numerous fauna have been observed to engage in same-sex behavior. humans are animals just like anything else and we are prone to nature's imperfect chemistry.

I wouldn't deny that. Some people are very prone to violence, murder, and any other number of anti-social behaviors. Shall we allow those too because it's 'how they were born'? Of course we don't. Every person has objective morality placed into them (we all would agree that murder is wrong, that hitting a baby is also bad no matter the culture). This helps provide the litmus test in our minds to decide what's good and what's not.

Now before you quote me again out of context let me clearly say I am not equating gay with murder, I'm just using a strong analogous argument. The same thing could be said of left-handed people or gingers but it doesn't carry a negative impact like extremely anti-social behavior does.

Jacks:SmirkingRevenge said:
homosexuality might technically be an anomaly, but that doesn't mean homosexual people are evil or that homosexuality is any more "wrong" or "immoral" than Asperger syndrome.
by your (poor) logic, we should condemn anyone born with a mental disorder and strip them of their human rights just because they don't follow the standard model.

well unfortunately your logic is shit.

Do you have children? What if they were diagnosed with Asperger's? Would you not take them to a therapist to make them better? By your logic that would be wrong because they were 'born that way'.

BTW I've never said anyone is any less dignified than anyone else. I resent that inference. We can debate without trying to paint the other in an unflattering light. I'm just asking questions and telling why I think like I do. I don't think any less of you as a person because you think differently than me.

Vaskadar · Aug 10, 2012

Marriage itself is defined as an interpersonal relationship that is intimate and usually sexual in nature, but is acknowledged as such. By definition, acknowledgement of such a relationship can be done by the state. It's a legal contract in government terms, and is usually formalized by a ceremony. Whether or not it is sanctioned by the church doesn't change the definition.

Morality isn't objective, however. That's the flaw in your argument. It wasn't implanted via birth or anything, it was ingrained via the social environment. There are a lot of individuals in the southern states (particularly Texas) that are for the 'death penalty' which is a form of murder. I'd say the closest you can come to objectively ethical is avoiding bringing harm to another human being, directly or indirectly. However, there are other definitions for this.

You may believe that morality is objective, but that doesn't change the fact that it truly isn't, since everything is relative to both perspective and situation. Let's say you're protecting people from a genocidal regime. They are searching houses. They inspect your house, and the people you are protecting are hiding under the floorboards. They ask you: are you hiding anyone? You answer: No. You just lied to them, but is it unethical or immoral to do so? Lying to someone dangerous in that kind of situation to protect someone isn't immoral.

Your definition of marriage, however, is strictly for procreation. This is a very subjective definition. The legal definition is different. Having marriage recognized by the state shouldn't bother you, though, since it has absolutely nothing to do with your own marriage.

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, pg. 159.

Essentially, what I'm referencing is that you should have no qualms with someone you don't know doing things that can't possibly hurt you.

What if Jesus was gay?

Active Member

Demented Avenger

☆☆☆☆☆

Demented Avenger

unbalanced

Demented Avenger

Active Member

╠╣E╚╚O

unbalanced

Demented Avenger

╠╣E╚╚O

unbalanced

╠╣E╚╚O

surrealistic mad cow

Reaper

Active Member

Sweet Dreams

╠╣E╚╚O

Active Member

It's time I look back from outer space