|
itsallgood
|
|
Posted 05/16/12
|
Reply with quote
#106
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Blake1960
>>> Natural means in nature and many creatures in nature have homosexual relationships making it part of nature and therefore natural.
That's a blatant lie perpetrated by sodomizers trying to justify their abominable unhealthful deviant behavior. You've been misled.
One animal may mount another to demonstrate dominance; there is no relationship, no intercourse. Of course on atheism we are all animals, and animals don't have any rights whatsoever.
No its not higher primates use it for social means, intimacy, reassurance and comfort within the group.
I would think that after so many years you Christians would avoid playing with science and the natural world to try and support your iron age myth and superstitions but you keep trying and getting owned lol.
I suggest you stick to "cos god" and " was magic" with a liberal dose of "mysterious ways" as a rebuttal from now on k?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Blake1960
|
|
Posted 05/16/12
|
Reply with quote
#107
|
|
Credible source? None.
Again, mounting as a display of dominance is not homosexual behavior. To pretend it is is just dishonest. Filthy disease-prone behavior is not something that evolutionary mechanisms would favor.
You've been misled. What you've eagerly chosen to believe is not science. It is propaganda. Seek truth.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Blake1960
|
|
Posted 05/16/12
|
Reply with quote
#108
|
|
>>> I suggest you stick to "cos god" and " was magic" with a liberal dose of "mysterious ways" as a rebuttal from now on k?
You're participating in a forum for irenic and substantive discussion concerning reason, Christianity, and G-d. Such juvenile disdainful outbursts violate the terms of use here. Those who openly disdain Christianity have no business participating in this forum. Integrity matters. You've too eagerly flushed yours down the toilet.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheProblemOfAtheism
|
|
Posted 05/16/12
|
Reply with quote
#109
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by itsallgoodQuote: Originally Posted by TheProblemOfAtheism
Do you have any evidence that marriage has not been defined as between a man and a woman? You mean like the image of the NC constitution directly above your post where it uses the term "persons"...  .
No. You said "in history". Unless you believe the NC constitution is reflective of history across the globe, then the NC constitution does not represent "history" as a whole.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Mae
|
|
Posted 05/16/12
|
Reply with quote
#110
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Blake1960
>>> Natural means in nature and many creatures in nature have homosexual relationships making it part of nature and therefore natural.
That's a blatant lie perpetrated by sodomizers trying to justify their abominable unhealthful deviant behavior. You've been misled.
One animal may mount another to demonstrate dominance; there is no relationship, no intercourse. Of course on atheism we are all animals, and animals don't have any rights whatsoever.
Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Check out the scholarly sources listed with it.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
itsallgood
|
|
Posted 05/16/12
|
Reply with quote
#111
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Blake1960
>>> I suggest you stick to "cos god" and " was magic" with a liberal dose of "mysterious ways" as a rebuttal from now on k?
You're participating in a forum for irenic and substantive discussion concerning reason, Christianity, and G-d. Such juvenile disdainful outbursts violate the terms of use here. Those who openly disdain Christianity have no business participating in this forum. Integrity matters. You've too eagerly flushed yours down the toilet.
Try less disdain for homosexuals and facts regarding sex and il treat you with the respect doing so deserves.
I mean fanatical rants like this have no place:
Quote: That's a blatant lie perpetrated by sodomizers trying to justify their abominable unhealthful deviant behavior.
But facts like the ones in this link do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
I love the Black Swan example were the homosexual action means more of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs.
Quote: No. You said "in history".
Actually i said this:
Quote: Theres nothing ridiculous about it, "marriage" in history has not only been defined as being between a man and woman only so claiming it is only for a man and woman is for political or personal reasons.
Then i provided a historical document proving it  .
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheProblemOfAtheism
|
|
Posted 05/16/12
|
Reply with quote
#112
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by itsallgoodQuote: Originally Posted by Blake1960
>>> I suggest you stick to "cos god" and " was magic" with a liberal dose of "mysterious ways" as a rebuttal from now on k?
You're participating in a forum for irenic and substantive discussion concerning reason, Christianity, and G-d. Such juvenile disdainful outbursts violate the terms of use here. Those who openly disdain Christianity have no business participating in this forum. Integrity matters. You've too eagerly flushed yours down the toilet.
Try less disdain for homosexuals and facts regarding sex and il treat you with the respect doing so deserves. I mean fanatical rants like this have no place: Quote: That's a blatant lie perpetrated by sodomizers trying to justify their abominable unhealthful deviant behavior. But facts like the ones in this link do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animalsI love the Black Swan example were the homosexual action means more of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs. Quote: No. You said "in history". Actually i said this: Quote: Theres nothing ridiculous about it, "marriage" in history has not only been defined as being between a man and woman only so claiming it is only for a man and woman is for political or personal reasons. Then i provided a historical document proving it .
Your evidence in support of your claim that the universal or near-universal historical definition of marriage did not mention man and woman is not convincing.
Do you have any other documents?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Blake1960
|
|
Posted 05/16/12
|
Reply with quote
#113
|
|
Wikipedia? Sorry, not remotely reliable. Mostly a bastion of leftist/Progressive propaganda. Perfect place for Progressive atheist self delusion.
Still no substantive answer to the question.
It's a simple fact that anal sodomy is a very filthy, unhealthful, disease prone un-natural act.
It's why men who have sex with men are up to 8,000% more likely to contract HIV/AIDS.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Mae
|
|
Posted 05/16/12
|
Reply with quote
#114
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Blake1960
Wikipedia? Sorry, not remotely reliable. Mostly a bastion of leftist/Progressive propaganda. Perfect place for Progressive atheist self delusion.
Still no substantive answer to the question.
It's a simple fact that anal sodomy is a very filthy, unhealthful, disease prone un-natural act.
It's why men who have sex with men are up to 8,000% more likely to contract HIV/AIDS.
And all the scholarly sources I pointed out?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
troyjs
|
|
Posted 05/17/12
|
Reply with quote
#115
|
|
itsallgood,
you wrote:
Quote: Quote: Interestingly enough even the bigots of North Carolina back in the day used the term "persons" not man and woman:
I wrote:
Quote:
Interesting that they didn't feel the need to specify. Your interest that they used the term, 'persons', is acontextual -- or do you think that by the term, 'person', they were including within the scope of semantically valid interpretations, homosexual couples?
You then later wrote, in response to someone else:
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by TheProblemOfAtheism
Do you have any evidence that marriage has not been defined as between a man and a woman? You mean like the image of the NC constitution directly above your post where it uses the term "persons"...  .
I repeat my question to you:
Do you think that by the term, 'person', they were including within the scope of semantically valid interpretations, homosexual couples?
Historico-contextually, wouldn't it rather be more accurate to say that they didn't even feel the need to specify gender or sex? Or do you actually believe that they were allowing for homosexual marriage?
kind regards
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
itsallgood
|
|
Posted 05/17/12
|
Reply with quote
#116
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by troyjs
I repeat my question to you:
Do you think that by the term, 'person', they were including within the scope of semantically valid interpretations, homosexual couples?
Historico-contextually, wouldn't it rather be more accurate to say that they didn't even feel the need to specify gender or sex? Or do you actually believe that they were allowing for homosexual marriage?
kind regards
If they were allowing for homosexual marriage or not does not matter as at this point people are howling about definitions and using similar documents.
Quote: Your evidence in support of your claim that the universal or near-universal historical definition of marriage did not mention man and woman is not convincing.
Do you have any other documents?
LOL claim evidence is not convincing then demand more, rinse and repeat until no more is presented and then claim victory.....ER NO.
Theres plenty of material through history showing that marriage has not always been between man ann women.
Quote: AncientVarious types of same-sex marriages have existed,[51] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[52] In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[53] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[54] An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[55] The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[56] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[57] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[58] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[59] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.[60] In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[61] A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova. [62]
Quote: Modern In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[63] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[64] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[65] Iceland (2010) and Argentina (2010). In Mexico same sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[66] 250 million people (or 4% of the world population) live in areas that recognise same-sex marriage.[67]
Homosexual acts legal Same-sex marriage Other type of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation) Marriage recognized but not performed Same-sex unions not recognized Homosexual acts illegal Minimal penalty Heavy penalty Life in prison Death penalty
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
troyjs
|
|
Posted 05/17/12
|
Reply with quote
#117
|
|
itsallgood,
You said:
Quote: If they were allowing for homosexual marriage or not does not matter as at this point people are howling about definitions and using similar documents.
That is my point. Under scientific hermeneutical standards, do you think your interpretation of the contextual meaning of the term, 'person', is actually valid? If the contextual meaning of the term, 'person' in the document you allude to, does not contain within it's domain the concept of homosexual marriage, you are incorrect in thinking that the document allows for homosexual marriage -- even implicitly.
kind regards
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
itsallgood
|
|
Posted 05/17/12
|
Reply with quote
#118
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by troyjsitsallgood, You said: Quote: If they were allowing for homosexual marriage or not does not matter as at this point people are howling about definitions and using similar documents. That is my point. Under scientific hermeneutical standards, do you think your interpretation of the contextual meaning of the term, 'person', is actually valid? If the contextual meaning of the term, 'person' in the document you allude to, does not contain within it's domain the concept of homosexual marriage, you are incorrect in thinking that the document allows for homosexual marriage -- even implicitly. kind regards
We could ask the same question of documents shown saying "man and woman", was the intent to deliberately prevent same-sex marriage or was it just the term used.
This is why i think the terminology and definition arguments are worthless.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
troyjs
|
|
Posted 05/17/12
|
Reply with quote
#119
|
|
Quote: We could ask the same question of documents shown saying "man and woman", was the intent to deliberately prevent same-sex marriage or was it just the term used.
This is why i think the terminology and definition arguments are worthless.
I could interpret you to mean the exact opposite of what your words contextually indicate you to mean. You could either accept my interpretation which contradicts your initial meaning -- or you could argue hermeneutically.
As for 'man and woman' being an explicit denial of the validity of homosexual marriage, there is a stronger case for this. Homosexual relations was considered a crime atleast since the reign of the Assyrians, up through the dominance of the Babylonian kingdom, and even where homosexual relations was not frowned upon, it was outside of the marital context. There is more precedent for inter-special marriage, than for homosexual marriage.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Blake1960
|
|
Posted 05/17/12
|
Reply with quote
#120
|
|
>>> And all the scholarly sources I pointed out?
Wikipedia? The so-called "scholarly" reports I've seen have one thing in common. They report mere mounting (a display of dominance) as if it were a sex act. In short, they lie. Academia is rife with such disingenuousness. See the university if East Anglia for example. When it comes to Progressive political issues, far to many "scholars" are nothing more than propagandists.
Point me to your most convincing source.
Then answer the questions that you've so far been dodging, including Troy's please.
On evolution and natural selection, homosexuality is literally a dead end. Add to that the very real risk that anal sodomy poses to health and life and it becomes entirely indefensible. But we ought to equate it to the natural procreative joining of husband and wife? We ought not maintain special respect and recognition for the only union capable of sustaining humanity's existence?
You've been misled. Seek truth.
Prediction: Queue another emotional personal attack.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
