Is Western culture being destroyed? [Archive] - House of Politics

9sublime

01-05-2008, 04:01 AM

GOD! OH GOD! AAAA!

The ISMS are destroying everything! Communism! Terrorism! Multi cultralism! Liberalism!

How about you look around you and realise, you live in something called existence. Its something where things change.
Being white, whats so great about it over the other races now? Just because we traditionally whipped and abused the blacks, exploited the asians and kicked out native dwellers hardly gives us grounds to call ourselves the most noble of races now does it?

The liberal mental disease? If it helps you sleep as night by attacking people with left wing views as mental cases, then so be it. But I think every rational personal not filled with hate knows that a balance between liberalism and conservatism is the best mix. I personally think you are the one with a mind disease, wanting to segregate the races and believing that other races mixing with us is the root of all evil.

Get out your parents basement and meet a couple of decent people not of anglo saxon origin and try and change your mind eh?

bewitched

01-05-2008, 06:49 AM

Is western culture being destroyed by multi-culturalism?

I say yes, soon to enjoy the civility of white culture, we will have to establish a segregated Anglo colony and start all over. Both Europe and the United States of America will be third world cultures and countries.

I personally put the blame on the liberal mental disease that exist in the western world today, what say you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=504159&in_page_id=1773

I wouldn't blame liberal mental disease because that's not a real thing. but yes, western culture is at risk because there is an enemy that doesn't like it and has a plan to destroy it. Osama has a 7 phase plan to do so.
www.mapsofwar.com
has an excellent map of how the spread of Islam has grown and spread. the theology preached is positively taking aggressive action against the West. there is a strong hatred of the West.
what happens with liberals is that they don't want to see this. liberals are pluralistic and can't seem to understand that others don't embrace pluralism. so liberal mindset is lax. that's not a disease, just a form of malase.

numinus

01-05-2008, 08:28 AM

The only culture worth saving is that which promotes peaceful coexistence. Western culture is hardly that. So its demise would be a good thing - if you consider synthesis with other cultures as a demise.

Izz

01-05-2008, 09:09 AM

I say yes, soon to enjoy the civility of white culture, we will have to establish a segregated Anglo colony and start all over. Both Europe and the United States of America will be third world cultures and countries.

I personally put the blame on the liberal mental disease that exist in the western world today, what say you?

...where do people like you COME from? oO Dear god, man, if racial mixing and the acceptence of other cultures is the first sign of the apocalypse then you'd better hole yourself up in your basement with your nice pillowcase hat and get ready.

bewitched

01-05-2008, 04:53 PM

bewitched

01-05-2008, 04:54 PM

...where do people like you COME from? oO Dear god, man, if racial mixing and the acceptence of other cultures is the first sign of the apocalypse then you'd better hole yourself up in your basement with your nice pillowcase hat and get ready.

there is a point when culture clash becomes war. and that's where we are now. in case you hadn't noticed.

I-AM-THAT-I-AM

01-05-2008, 05:47 PM

heyjude

01-05-2008, 06:45 PM

I-AM-THAT-I-AM

01-05-2008, 07:40 PM

I am going to assume that you came here as a result of a bet. You are betting on how long you can last before you are kicked off? Have you played this game on other boards?

I am sure that you are aware that your user name is a serious offence to many. I will not use it when responding to you out of respect to Jewish people. So I will call you ****.

I don't think you are going to get much action here. We are grown ups. You apparently are not.

How is my user name offensive, please explain?

I have not made a bet on how long it will be before I get kick off of the board, I am here to debate a subject that I consider a serious issue, at least to me.

Bunz

01-05-2008, 11:34 PM

It is funny how we exposed communism for what is was in Russia during the cold war, now I find it strange that Russia is becoming a democratic society and we (The U.S.) is becoming socialist which is nothing but communism with a new name.
I find it funny how you think that there communism in what is now Russia. What they had was a dictatorship, running under the guise of communism enforced by a strict military rule.
Just the same that your notion that Russia today is a democracy, because it is far from it. Also, do you even know what socialism really is? America is more than a hop skip and a jump from socialism. If you want socialism, look to the scandinavian countries.

Segep

01-06-2008, 09:10 AM

How is my user name offensive, please explain?

You know damned well. Don't play stupid, no matter how convincing you are. Ehyeh asher ehyeh = I am that I am.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am

bokile

02-21-2008, 03:36 PM

pocketfullofshells

02-22-2008, 08:06 PM

Izz

02-23-2008, 10:51 AM

*looks back through the thread* didn't we already have the "GTFO our planet you WASP obsessed loser' discussion? oO

Mare Tranquillity

02-23-2008, 10:19 PM

I support you smart man. White Christians are on their knees:mad: soon the USA will be majority black nation and Europe's dominant religion will be Islam. Who ever do not agree to this is blind:eek:

I find it interesting how frightened people always find things to be frightened of no matter how much the world changes. There has always been a boogy man out there that people can use to justify their fear and bigotry--Christ on a crutch! Read some history!

And Christians are SUPPOSED to be on their knees!

numinus

02-24-2008, 05:24 AM

Mare Tranquillity

02-24-2008, 10:34 AM

What an odd thing to say -- especially after john paul 2 message at the start of his papacy -- and, in hind sight, its defining theme.

BE NOT AFRAID.

You are truly funny, I can't help imagining you're a clown.

You are judged by your works not your words. Anyone can make any kind of statement--Hell, look at the guy in the White House, but it's what you actually DO that really counts.

In this case your attack on me personally shows that you have little of substantive to say.

Coyote

02-24-2008, 05:09 PM

I can't help but think of this quote:

What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea.
Mohandas Gandhi

numinus

02-24-2008, 09:58 PM

You are judged by your works not your words. Anyone can make any kind of statement--Hell, look at the guy in the White House, but it's what you actually DO that really counts.

In this case your attack on me personally shows that you have little of substantive to say.

LMAO some more.

And jp2 said or did something that actually scares you, eh? Enough to coersce you to profess christianity?

Nobody is forcing you to THINK anything (however absurd your thoughts are) -- least of all, christianity.

bokile

03-02-2008, 06:44 AM

I find it interesting how frightened people always find things to be frightened of no matter how much the world changes. There has always been a boogy man out there that people can use to justify their fear and bigotry--Christ on a crutch! Read some history!

And Christians are SUPPOSED to be on their knees!

The ‘End of America’

The ‘End of America’ has come, warns a new book by a former US Presidential candidate named Patrick J. Buchanan, and who states:

• Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a product of hubris and of ideology, a secular religion of “democratism,” to which Bush was converted in the days following 9/11

• Torn asunder by a culture war, America has now begun to break down along class, ethnic and racial lines.

• The greatest threat to U.S. sovereignty and independence is the scheme of a global elite to erase America’s borders and merge the USA, Mexico and Canada into a North American Union.

• Free trade is shipping jobs, factories and technology to China and plunging America into permanent dependency and unpayable debt. One of every six U.S. manufacturing jobs vanished under Bush

• “Sovereign Wealth Funds,” controlled by foreign regimes and stuffed with trillions of dollars from U.S. trade deficits, are buying up strategic corporate assets vital to America’s security

• As U.S. wages are stagnant, corporate CEOs are raking in rising pay and benefits 400 to 500 times that of their workers

• The Third World invasion through Mexico is a graver threat to our survival as one nation than anything happening in Afghanistan or Iraq

* European-Americans, 89% of the nation when JFK took the oath, are now 66% and sinking. Before 2050, America is a Third World nation

• By 2060, America will add 167 million people and 105 million immigrants will be here, triple the 37 million today.

• Hispanics will be over 100 million in 2050 and concentrated in a Southwest most Mexicans believe belongs to them

read this
http://www.usapopulationmap.com/race_2090.html

Mare Tranquillity

03-02-2008, 04:37 PM

LMAO some more.

And jp2 said or did something that actually scares you, eh? Enough to coersce you to profess christianity?

Nobody is forcing you to THINK anything (however absurd your thoughts are) -- least of all, christianity.

What an odd post. No, I don't think John Paul II said anything that frightens me, but your question highlights one of the most dishonest methods that Christianity uses to get converts: fear. If you can coerce people into "professing" your religion, then all you have are "rice Christians".

Again no, no one is forcing me to accept their dogma though Christianity tries to do that to people (as you said). Christianity has become a religion based on fear, not on love as Jesus intended--that's why I quit the religion in which I was raised: fear and hypocrisy, intolerance and ignorace masquerading as piety.

I whittled away at John Paul's encyclical and I have rarely seen a more self-serving piece of propaganda in my life. You talk about logic and reason, but there isn't any of it in his encyclical that I could see.

numinus

03-04-2008, 06:50 AM

What an odd post. No, I don't think John Paul II said anything that frightens me, but your question highlights one of the most dishonest methods that Christianity uses to get converts: fear. If you can coerce people into "professing" your religion, then all you have are "rice Christians".

Again no, no one is forcing me to accept their dogma though Christianity tries to do that to people (as you said). Christianity has become a religion based on fear, not on love as Jesus intended--that's why I quit the religion in which I was raised: fear and hypocrisy, intolerance and ignorace masquerading as piety.

You are a liar and there simply isn't any sense in what you are saying. Fear is the last thing christianity (at least, catholics) would be promoting -- especially when its leader exhorted -- be not afraid.

And all throughout his ministry, jp2 has called and worked for inter-faith dialogue and understanding.

I whittled away at John Paul's encyclical and I have rarely seen a more self-serving piece of propaganda in my life. You talk about logic and reason, but there isn't any of it in his encyclical that I could see.

It is right there -- the culmination of the entire western philosophical thought -- especially RATIONALISM.

And if you can't discern logic in it, then you are simply beyond redemption.

Then again, what can anyone expect from someone who holds homosexuality as a valid societal standard?

Mare Tranquillity

03-04-2008, 12:12 PM

You are a liar and there simply isn't any sense in what you are saying. Fear is the last thing christianity (at least, catholics) would be promoting -- especially when its leader exhorted -- be not afraid.

And all throughout his ministry, jp2 has called and worked for inter-faith dialogue and understanding.

It is right there -- the culmination of the entire western philosophical thought -- especially RATIONALISM.

And if you can't discern logic in it, then you are simply beyond redemption.
I seem to recall that in the Bible it says that you are not in a position to tell someone that they are or are not beyond redemption. You don't come across as a very good spokesperson for your religion, your grasp of Scripture seems weak.

Then again, what can anyone expect from someone who holds homosexuality as a valid societal standard?

Don't be so hysterical, Nums, you look silly with all that foam around your mouth. If you have free-will and some supernatural being tells you what you HAVE to do with that free-will or He will send you to Hell for eternal torment, then that supernatural being is using your FEAR of Hell and eternal torment to make you do what He demands. Christianity is a religion based on fear of Heavenly vegeance.

I gotta tell ya, Nums, if that encyclical was the culmination of western philosophical thought, then we are in deeeeeep trouble. I mean look at the basis for Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was His own Father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink His blood, and telepathically tell Him that you accept Him as your Master, so He can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... That's rational?

Coyote

03-04-2008, 12:59 PM

Based on the ongoing conversations know Numinus is a practicing Catholic but I bet Mare Tranquility is an ex-Catholic.

There are none so vehemently anti-religion as ex-Catholics.

(I'm neither)

9sublime

03-04-2008, 01:07 PM

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was His own Father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink His blood, and telepathically tell Him that you accept Him as your Master, so He can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... That's rational?

Fantastic!

Mare Tranquillity

03-04-2008, 01:17 PM

Based on the ongoing conversations know Numinus is a practicing Catholic but I bet Mare Tranquility is an ex-Catholic.

There are none so vehemently anti-religion as ex-Catholics.

(I'm neither)

Actually, Coyote, I'm not an ex-Catholic. My problem with Christianity is that it no longer has anything to do with the teachings of Jesus. As a long-time student of the history of Christianity I also know that most Christians are sheep and know nothing about the history of their own religion.

I do outreach in the gay and trans community and I see daily the terrible damage done to people by the hatred and bigotry purveyed by the people using the Bible as a weapon. I object to the stupidity and cruelty visitied on all of us by ignorant Bible-beaters. I lost both of my brothers when I transitioned because they are Christians and they say I'm a minion of Satan, but neither one can come up with a single Scripture that indicates any sin I've committed. Hello? There is not on single mention of transgendered people or about gender presentation in the whole Bible--we are persecuted by the Nums of the world because they are world-class ignorant of their own religion and so totally bigoted that they cannot learn. Other than that I don't have problem with them. Nums just happens to be an egregiously bad example and he's willing to keep exposing himself to my examination and comment.

Coyote

03-04-2008, 01:34 PM

Actually, Coyote, I'm not an ex-Catholic. My problem with Christianity is that it no longer has anything to do with the teachings of Jesus. As a long-time student of the history of Christianity I also know that most Christians are sheep and know nothing about the history of their own religion.

I do outreach in the gay and trans community and I see daily the terrible damage done to people by the hatred and bigotry purveyed by the people using the Bible as a weapon. I object to the stupidity and cruelty visitied on all of us by ignorant Bible-beaters. I lost both of my brothers when I transitioned because they are Christians and they say I'm a minion of Satan, but neither one can come up with a single Scripture that indicates any sin I've committed. Hello? There is not on single mention of transgendered people or about gender presentation in the whole Bible--we are persecuted by the Nums of the world because they are world-class ignorant of their own religion and so totally bigoted that they cannot learn. Other than that I don't have problem with them. Nums just happens to be an egregiously bad example and he's willing to keep exposing himself to my examination and comment.

I don't disagree with you on a certain amount of hypocrisy in many religious faiths, it's why I've always been a cynic in regards to organized religion. You reminded me of two friends who were raised Catholic and are now athiest and another who came from a fundamentalist background. I always liked what Karen Armstrong had to say - all the major religions share a common base: compassion. It's unfortunate that many have forgotten that - not all but certainly those represented by the Phelps and Falwell's of this world.

Mare Tranquillity

03-04-2008, 02:14 PM

I don't disagree with you on a certain amount of hypocrisy in many religious faiths, it's why I've always been a cynic in regards to organized religion. You reminded me of two friends who were raised Catholic and are now athiest and another who came from a fundamentalist background. I always liked what Karen Armstrong had to say - all the major religions share a common base: compassion. It's unfortunate that many have forgotten that - not all but certainly those represented by the Phelps and Falwell's of this world.

I very much like the teachings of Jesus, but I think a vast amount of the Bible is twaddle. For instance much of the Law of Moses was lifted out of the Code of Hammurabi, the genocide, raping the wives of vanquished foes, kidnapping virgins and raping them, selling children and others into slavery... all that is just nonsense and it's blasphemy to accuse God of saying it.

Coyote

03-04-2008, 07:56 PM

I very much like the teachings of Jesus, but I think a vast amount of the Bible is twaddle. For instance much of the Law of Moses was lifted out of the Code of Hammurabi, the genocide, raping the wives of vanquished foes, kidnapping virgins and raping them, selling children and others into slavery... all that is just nonsense and it's blasphemy to accuse God of saying it.

I wouldn't say nonsense...like the Quran, it has to be read and understood in the context of it's times. Issac Asimov wrote a series of interesting books called the Bible as History which explored the historical aspects of it. They were quite good though it's been more then 25 years since I've read them. There's a lot of myth and there's a good bit of politicizing as well by the Church when it was consoledating it's power. It's got a lot of beauty too. I've always loved the Song of Solomon.

I've never believed it (or anything) to be the literal word of any diety.

If the word of "God(s)" exist(s) anywhere - it's entwined in the code of our DNA.

Mare Tranquillity

03-04-2008, 08:27 PM

I wouldn't say nonsense...like the Quran, it has to be read and understood in the context of it's times. Issac Asimov wrote a series of interesting books called the Bible as History which explored the historical aspects of it. They were quite good though it's been more then 25 years since I've read them. There's a lot of myth and there's a good bit of politicizing as well by the Church when it was consoledating it's power. It's got a lot of beauty too. I've always loved the Song of Solomon.

I've never believed it (or anything) to be the literal word of any diety.

If the word of "God(s)" exist(s) anywhere - it's entwined in the code of our DNA.

My point was that the violent stupidity advocated supposedly by God is nonsense. Yes, there are some good pieces of writing in all the holy books, and in a lot of regular books too.

numinus

03-04-2008, 10:03 PM

Based on the ongoing conversations know Numinus is a practicing Catholic but I bet Mare Tranquility is an ex-Catholic.

There are none so vehemently anti-religion as ex-Catholics.

(I'm neither)

I'm a nominal catholic. I simply cannot abide sitting in church for two hours every week. And if the present pope gets his way, I'll probably be among the first to get excommunicated.

It can't be helped, I suppose.

numinus

03-04-2008, 10:25 PM

I seem to recall that in the Bible it says that you are not in a position to tell someone that they are or are not beyond redemption. You don't come across as a very good spokesperson for your religion, your grasp of Scripture seems weak.

I was talking about intellectual redemption -- something scripture alone, sadly, does not provide.

Don't be so hysterical, Nums, you look silly with all that foam around your mouth.

Its more resignation than hysteria. As I said, against calcified ignorance, even god contends in vain.

If you have free-will and some supernatural being tells you what you HAVE to do with that free-will or He will send you to Hell for eternal torment, then that supernatural being is using your FEAR of Hell and eternal torment to make you do what He demands. Christianity is a religion based on fear of Heavenly vegeance.

No. Human free will is the faculty by which we discern and obtain the FULLNESS OF HUMAN LIFE. If you act in a way that contradicts this, you are not in fact free, but a SLAVE to your own base nature.

The nature of sin and eternal punishment therefore, in view of soteriology, becomes moot. Until you learn to act in a manner fit for human existence, hence obtain the rewards inherent in such an action, you are doomed to an existence that is less than human -- a personal hell of your own making.

So, you can act according to divine revelation, or discern the SAME thing through the natural operation of human reason -- your choice.

Understand?

I gotta tell ya, Nums, if that encyclical was the culmination of western philosophical thought, then we are in deeeeeep trouble. I mean look at the basis for Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was His own Father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink His blood, and telepathically tell Him that you accept Him as your Master, so He can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... That's rational?

I can see that you have not read the particular encyclical. What I cannot understand is how you pretend to criticize it without knowing it to begin with?

If the standard for rational action is an informed choice -- a fundamental awareness of such an action's logical consequences -- then it follows that rejection of something without awareness is NOT AN ACT OF FREE WILL. To my mind, only beasts of a lesser order of rationality behave without free will. They are slaves to their own base nature.

numinus

03-04-2008, 10:59 PM

I mean look at the basis for Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was His own Father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink His blood,

The eucharist is a ritual depicting, not only spirirtual sustenance, but the bond that exists within a community sharing a meal together.

and telepathically tell Him that you accept Him as your Master,

Try father -- which was an outrage to the jews.

The thing is, one instinctively rejects an external 'master' acting as some sort of police. When jesus clarified that the relationship is like that of a loving father and his prodigal son, we reject it as well.

So, what exactly suits your logic -- that there is no creator and that we came about randomly from nothing? You are free to delude yourself with that as well and it wouldn't make a wit of difference to your human existence.

so He can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... That's rational?

More literal nonsense.

A man and a woman is depicted as two separate entities of the same being. That their conjugal union is the logical step for them to be whole.

And partaking of the FRUIT OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, against the very commandment of the one who CREATED EVERYTHING, depicts a situation where HUMAN REASON PROCEED WITHOUT ETHICS.

Btw, humanae vitae doesn't explain genesis. You can get genesis at any catholic catechism.

Mare Tranquillity

03-05-2008, 08:08 AM

If the standard for rational action is an informed choice -- a fundamental awareness of such an action's logical consequences -- then it follows that rejection of something without awareness is NOT AN ACT OF FREE WILL. To my mind, only beasts of a lesser order of rationality behave without free will. They are slaves to their own base nature.

In light of this paragraph, why is it that you continue to give me static about being a transsexual? You obviously don't know anything about this birth defect so what gives you the idea that you can speak critically of people who HAVE the birth defect?

Mare Tranquillity

03-05-2008, 08:22 AM

The eucharist is a ritual depicting, not only spirirtual sustenance, but the bond that exists within a community sharing a meal together.
Call it what ever euphemistic term you like, but the bottom line is that it is ritual cannibalism.

Try father -- which was an outrage to the jews.

The thing is, one instinctively rejects an external 'master' acting as some sort of police. When jesus clarified that the relationship is like that of a loving father and his prodigal son, we reject it as well.

So, what exactly suits your logic -- that there is no creator and that we came about randomly from nothing? You are free to delude yourself with that as well and it wouldn't make a wit of difference to your human existence.
In the story of the prodigal son, the father did not set a time limit and consign his son to eternal torment for not making the deadline, whereas that is in effect what is done by the Christians religion.

No place have I ever said that I don't believe in God nor that I think our existence is an accident. I have no problem with the teachings of Jesus or the existence of God, my problem lies with the practice of Christianity which ignores the teachings of Jesus, sets up men as arbiters of God's Will, and condemns people on the basis of human interpretation of an old book for which there no proof that God had any hand in the writing of. What is difficult for you to understand is that I'm not rejecting God, I'm rejecting the practice of Christianity as it is generally practiced in the US.

More literal nonsense.
Yes, I agree, taking the Bible literally is nonsense.

A man and a woman is depicted as two separate entities of the same being. That their conjugal union is the logical step for them to be whole.
Another piece of nonsense is assigning gender to spirits, a union of two spirits can make them a gestalt, the gender of the bodies that they inhabit is irrelevant. Love is the magical ingredient, Nums, and that is what you deny.

And partaking of the FRUIT OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, against the very commandment of the one who CREATED EVERYTHING, depicts a situation where HUMAN REASON PROCEED WITHOUT ETHICS.
Another piece of nonsense if taken literally.

Btw, humanae vitae doesn't explain genesis. You can get genesis at any catholic catechism.
Trust me on this one, Nums, the encyclical doesn't explain much of anything, but it does parade around the swollen human egos of the folks who wrote and published it. (Oh yeah, the little explanation of Christianity that I posted was intended to be humorous. I thought it was cleverly written even though I don't know who did it and thus could not give credit to the author.)

Coyote

03-05-2008, 12:13 PM

I'm a nominal catholic. I simply cannot abide sitting in church for two hours every week. And if the present pope gets his way, I'll probably be among the first to get excommunicated.

It can't be helped, I suppose.

You're a thinking Catholic.

Sometimes thinking isn't a appreciated.

I'd probably be burned at the stake or something. That's ok though. I love a good barbecue. :)

Coyote

03-05-2008, 12:16 PM

Until you learn to act in a manner fit for human existence, hence obtain the rewards inherent in such an action, you are doomed to an existence that is less than human -- a personal hell of your own making.

Now that is a most interesting statement....

What constitutes "a manner fit for human existence"?

numinus

03-06-2008, 10:27 AM

In light of this paragraph, why is it that you continue to give me static about being a transsexual? You obviously don't know anything about this birth defect so what gives you the idea that you can speak critically of people who HAVE the birth defect?

I do not 'give you static' because you are a transexual. I do so because you are ignorant.

numinus

03-06-2008, 10:56 AM

Call it what ever euphemistic term you like, but the bottom line is that it is ritual cannibalism.

Only an ignoramus would understand a RITUAL based on its outward manifestation alone.

In the story of the prodigal son, the father did not set a time limit and consign his son to eternal torment for not making the deadline, whereas that is in effect what is done by the Christians religion.

No.

The christian religion is about making a better place, here and now.

What happens to you after you die is, more or less, a done deal.

No place have I ever said that I don't believe in God nor that I think our existence is an accident. I have no problem with the teachings of Jesus or the existence of God, my problem lies with the practice of Christianity which ignores the teachings of Jesus, sets up men as arbiters of God's Will, and condemns people on the basis of human interpretation of an old book for which there no proof that God had any hand in the writing of. What is difficult for you to understand is that I'm not rejecting God, I'm rejecting the practice of Christianity as it is generally practiced in the US.

And christianity, as 'generally practiced', is the summation of infinitessimally little things done out of pure love. And like all good things, they tend to go unnoticed.

And why would anyone give a damn -- if majority of people are of your ilk -- people who revel in the evil in everything, hmmm?

Yes, I agree, taking the Bible literally is nonsense.

And yet, you persist on literal, fundamentally defective interpretations, eh? Sounds like someone has an agenda.

Another piece of nonsense is assigning gender to spirits, a union of two spirits can make them a gestalt, the gender of the bodies that they inhabit is irrelevant. Love is the magical ingredient, Nums, and that is what you deny.

Sigh

Your gender is part of who you are -- your BEING.

There is a simpler way to phrase this. Unfortunately for you, I'm not such a fan of simple-mindedness.

Another piece of nonsense if taken literally.

And what would be a correct interpretation, hmmm?

Trust me on this one, Nums, the encyclical doesn't explain much of anything, but it does parade around the swollen human egos of the folks who wrote and published it. (Oh yeah, the little explanation of Christianity that I posted was intended to be humorous. I thought it was cleverly written even though I don't know who did it and thus could not give credit to the author.)

And humor is all that there is to it.

numinus

03-06-2008, 10:57 AM

You're a thinking Catholic.

Sometimes thinking isn't a appreciated.

I'd probably be burned at the stake or something. That's ok though. I love a good barbecue. :)

And you're the main course. Yum.

numinus

03-06-2008, 10:58 AM

Now that is a most interesting statement....

What constitutes "a manner fit for human existence"?

A moral imperative.

Mare Tranquillity

03-06-2008, 03:08 PM

I do not 'give you static' because you are a transexual. I do so because you are ignorant.

Could you support that accusation please?

Mare Tranquillity

03-06-2008, 03:19 PM

Only an ignoramus would understand a RITUAL based on its outward manifestation alone.
Once you eat of the flesh and drink the blood it's inside of you and then it is also an "inward" manifestation, isn't it?

No.
The christian religion is about making a better place, here and now.What happens to you after you die is, more or less, a done deal.And christianity, as 'generally practiced', is the summation of infinitessimally little things done out of pure love. And like all good things, they tend to go unnoticed.And why would anyone give a damn -- if majority of people are of your ilk -- people who revel in the evil in everything, hmmm? And yet, you persist on literal, fundamentally defective interpretations, eh? Sounds like someone has an agenda.Sigh There is a simpler way to phrase this. Unfortunately for you, I'm not such a fan of simple-mindedness.And what would be a correct interpretation, hmmm? And humor is all that there is to it.
All of this seems to be nothing more than a mish-mash of unsupported statements and vitriolic personal attacks without basis in evidence.

Your gender is part of who you are -- your BEING.
YES! That is exactly what I have been getting at all along, and a small birth defect caused by the misfiring of the complex and delicate fetal hormone system during the 8th to 18th weeks of development doesn't change the gender that one is deep in their being. So, transsexuals do the best they can to make their defective bodies match their internal knowledge of who they are. Perfect, you're gettin' a grip on the subject now, Nums.:)

Mare Tranquillity

03-06-2008, 03:21 PM

And you're the main course. Yum.

Sorry, Nums, but that wouldn't be "ritual" cannibalism.

numinus

03-07-2008, 08:27 AM

Could you support that accusation please?

The proof is all over the forum. Take your pick.

numinus

03-07-2008, 08:42 AM

Once you eat of the flesh and drink the blood it's inside of you and then it is also an "inward" manifestation, isn't it?

Eh???

A catholic ritual is a symbolic act meant to convey a fundamental truth.

On its own, a ritual is meaningless.

All of this seems to be nothing more than a mish-mash of unsupported statements and vitriolic personal attacks without basis in evidence.

A jesuit professor with a doctorate in philosophy told me. I have no reason to doubt him, really.

YES! That is exactly what I have been getting at all along, and a small birth defect caused by the misfiring of the complex and delicate fetal hormone system during the 8th to 18th weeks of development doesn't change the gender that one is deep in their being. So, transsexuals do the best they can to make their defective bodies match their internal knowledge of who they are. Perfect, you're gettin' a grip on the subject now, Nums.:)

Look who's spouting 'mish-mash of unsupported statements without basis in evidence'!

Seems to me like more transsexuals have defective minds than bodies. Isn't it mandatory to have a psych evaluation prior to such an operation? Hmmm. I wonder why?

numinus

03-07-2008, 08:43 AM

Sorry, Nums, but that wouldn't be "ritual" cannibalism.

You mean its cannibalism to eat a coyote???

Mare Tranquillity

03-07-2008, 09:40 AM

You mean its cannibalism to eat a coyote???

You mean it's not cannibalism to eat Jesus' body and blood?

numinus

03-07-2008, 09:42 AM

You mean it's not cannibalism to eat Jesus' body and blood?

It would be if you actually ate his body.

Mare Tranquillity

03-07-2008, 09:43 AM

The proof is all over the forum. Take your pick.

So this is just another unwarranted, unsupported, unsupportable, impolite, unkind, disengenuous, cheap-shot, personal attack because you don't have anything substantive to say? Oh well...

Mare Tranquillity

03-07-2008, 09:45 AM

It would be if you actually ate his body.

Ritual cannibalism is hardly a thing to teach one's children, I mean you're upset because some people LOVE in ways you don't approve of, but you're willing to practice and teach ritual cannibalism. Religion makes people do strange things sometimes.

numinus

03-07-2008, 09:45 AM

So this is just another unwarranted, unsupported, unsupportable, impolite, unkind, disengenuous, cheap-shot, personal attack because you don't have anything substantive to say? Oh well...

Did you or did you not say that the udhr statement on the family includes homosexual unions?

Yes or no?

numinus

03-07-2008, 09:48 AM

Ritual cannibalism is hardly a thing to teach one's children, I mean you're upset because some people LOVE in ways you don't approve of, but you're willing to practice and teach ritual cannibalism. Religion makes people do strange things sometimes.

That's why the eucharist is allowed only from 10 onwards -- the reason being that a 10 year old can distinguish the meaning of the eucharist.

How old did you say you were?

Mare Tranquillity

03-07-2008, 10:07 AM

Eh???
Is this a family motto?

A catholic ritual is a symbolic act meant to convey a fundamental truth. On its own, a ritual is meaningless.
I'm willing to bet my album of Annette Funicello nudie pictures that the Pope would be real unhappy to hear you say that Communion was a meaningless ritual.

A jesuit professor with a doctorate in philosophy told me. I have no reason to doubt him, really.
It's good that you have others to do your thinking for you. This is one of the appeals of organized religion, you have someone to tell you what you should do and this seems to absolve you of a lot of responsibility for your actions. The Catholics who tortured people in the Inquisition did it on the say-so of the higher-ups in the church. People have done a lot of disgusting things on the say-so of authority figures and then excused themselves by saying, "I was just doing my job."

Look who's spouting 'mish-mash of unsupported statements without basis in evidence'!

Seems to me like more transsexuals have defective minds than bodies. Isn't it mandatory to have a psych evaluation prior to such an operation? Hmmm. I wonder why?
Well, mish-mash or not at least I am living my truth and not appealing to the authority of some church to make my decisions for me. Funny how you are quick to back-off when your own words make my point for me. Any time you want evidence just let me know and I'll give you the titles of some books to read on the subject or you can Google TRANSSEXUAL and pull up about a million citations--some of which are from reputable scientific sources. The fact that you are totally ignorant of the subject is disappointing but not surprising. The American Medical Association has been using the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care very successfully to treat transsexuals for more than 30 years now--shows how far behing the curve the churches and general population are, doesn't it?

Shoot, Nums, you have to have a psych eval to get into the military too, maybe if the Catholics had these evaluations for their priests then they wouldn't have so many child molestors.

I love the implied circular reasoning in your psych eval attack: if you have a psych eval that implies that you're nuts, if you don't have one then you're nuts too. The counseling that transgender people get is extremely valuable to rule out the several other causes of gender dysphoria, it also helps us deal with the insanely bigoted attacks made on us by uneducated religious folks. (It would be good to note here, Nums, that my question to you about why you're so down on transpeople went unanswered. There is nothing in the Bible about us--not a single word. Why aren't you attacking people with piercings? Those aren't mentioned in the Bible either and it's OBVIOUSLY body mutilation.) Come on, Nums, pony up here, explain why you are attacking transpeople with such vitriol.

Mare Tranquillity

03-07-2008, 10:08 AM

Did you or did you not say that the udhr statement on the family includes homosexual unions?

Yes or no?

It doesn't rule them out, it doesn't forbid them. It doesn't even mention them.

Mare Tranquillity

03-07-2008, 10:10 AM

That's why the eucharist is allowed only from 10 onwards -- the reason being that a 10 year old can distinguish the meaning of the eucharist.

How old did you say you were?

It's good to know that the Catholic church has standards, one has to be at least 10 years old to participate in ritual cannibalism. How old does one have to be before one can be molested by a priest?

Mare Tranquillity

03-07-2008, 10:13 AM

Did you or did you not say that the udhr statement on the family includes homosexual unions?

Yes or no?

I had to chuckle when I read this post, it's not a yes or no question. It reminded me of the old question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It doesn't matter how you answer it you're wrong. This is a debating technique called "framing the discussion". You're fun, Nums.:D

Coyote

03-07-2008, 07:02 PM

And you're the main course. Yum.

I go good with Jack Daniels BBQ sauce:D

Coyote

03-07-2008, 07:03 PM

A moral imperative.

I see only one thing that to me exemplifies "a manner fit for human existence" and that is living a life guided by compassion.

Coyote

03-07-2008, 07:05 PM

You mean its cannibalism to eat a coyote???

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

now that's just cold!

vyo476

03-07-2008, 07:58 PM

now that's just cold!

I'm kind of thinking you'd be heated first, actually.

Mare Tranquillity

03-07-2008, 07:59 PM

I'm kind of thinking you'd be heated first, actually.

Cold cuts--the unkindest cuts of all.

numinus

03-08-2008, 05:38 AM

Is this a family motto?

Members of my family would've given up talking to you ages ago.

I'm willing to bet my album of Annette Funicello nudie pictures that the Pope would be real unhappy to hear you say that Communion was a meaningless ritual.

You've just lost a bet, then.

sac·ra·ment /ˈsækrəmənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sak-ruh-muhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

1. Ecclesiastical. a visible sign of an inward grace, esp. one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord's Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction.
2. (often initial capital letter) Also called Holy Sacrament. the Eucharist or Lord's Supper.
3. the consecrated elements of the Eucharist, esp. the bread.
4. something regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance.
5. a sign, token, or symbol.
6. an oath; solemn pledge.

Keep your nudie pictures. It is enough to demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are.

It's good that you have others to do your thinking for you. This is one of the appeals of organized religion, you have someone to tell you what you should do and this seems to absolve you of a lot of responsibility for your actions. The Catholics who tortured people in the Inquisition did it on the say-so of the higher-ups in the church. People have done a lot of disgusting things on the say-so of authority figures and then excused themselves by saying, "I was just doing my job."

And I suppose you are incapable of learning from other people, hmmm?

Your reasoning tells tons about the company you keep.

Well, mish-mash or not at least I am living my truth and not appealing to the authority of some church to make my decisions for me. Funny how you are quick to back-off when your own words make my point for me. Any time you want evidence just let me know and I'll give you the titles of some books to read on the subject or you can Google TRANSSEXUAL and pull up about a million citations--some of which are from reputable scientific sources. The fact that you are totally ignorant of the subject is disappointing but not surprising. The American Medical Association has been using the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care very successfully to treat transsexuals for more than 30 years now--shows how far behing the curve the churches and general population are, doesn't it?

Yeah, like I have anything to do with transexuals.

Shoot, Nums, you have to have a psych eval to get into the military too, maybe if the Catholics had these evaluations for their priests then they wouldn't have so many child molestors.

Military personnel are given guns. Of course nobody wants an unstable person with a gun.

Priests are evaluated according to intelligence. They undergo something like 10 years of training before being ordained as a priest.

Oh, and as for child molesters, I think you're quite safe from them. They prefer actual children -- not someone who only thinks like one.

I love the implied circular reasoning in your psych eval attack: if you have a psych eval that implies that you're nuts, if you don't have one then you're nuts too. The counseling that transgender people get is extremely valuable to rule out the several other causes of gender dysphoria, it also helps us deal with the insanely bigoted attacks made on us by uneducated religious folks. (It would be good to note here, Nums, that my question to you about why you're so down on transpeople went unanswered. There is nothing in the Bible about us--not a single word. Why aren't you attacking people with piercings? Those aren't mentioned in the Bible either and it's OBVIOUSLY body mutilation.) Come on, Nums, pony up here, explain why you are attacking transpeople with such vitriol.

Transexualism is a personal choice that can only do harm to the transexual.

How many personal life decisions do you suppose are there that requires a psych evaluation, hmmm?

numinus

03-08-2008, 05:41 AM

It doesn't rule them out, it doesn't forbid them. It doesn't even mention them.

Correct.

It is NOT CONTEMPLATED with the assertion that 'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society'.

It wasn't that hard, was it?

numinus

03-08-2008, 05:49 AM

It's good to know that the Catholic church has standards, one has to be at least 10 years old to participate in ritual cannibalism.

You wouldn't know. You have an iq that cannot even surpass that of most 10 year olds.

How old does one have to be before one can be molested by a priest?

You mean a HOMOSEXUAL, pedophile priest? You tell me -- since you have at least 1/3 in common with these sort.

numinus

03-08-2008, 05:51 AM

I had to chuckle when I read this post, it's not a yes or no question. It reminded me of the old question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It doesn't matter how you answer it you're wrong. This is a debating technique called "framing the discussion". You're fun, Nums.:D

But you answered, nonetheless.

numinus

03-08-2008, 05:52 AM

I see only one thing that to me exemplifies "a manner fit for human existence" and that is living a life guided by compassion.

That is a moral imperative as well.

numinus

03-08-2008, 05:55 AM

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

now that's just cold!

The ribs are particularly good -- so they say.

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 09:53 AM

You've just lost a bet, then.

sac·ra·ment /ˈsækrəmənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sak-ruh-muhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

1. Ecclesiastical. a visible sign of an inward grace, esp. one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord's Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction.
2. (often initial capital letter) Also called Holy Sacrament. the Eucharist or Lord's Supper.
3. the consecrated elements of the Eucharist, esp. the bread.
4. something regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance.
5. a sign, token, or symbol.
6. an oath; solemn pledge.
Too bad you didn't read my post, Nums, my statement was "...the Pope would be real unhappy to hear you say that Communion was a meaningless ritual," and your wonderful definition didn't address the bet in any way. You posted that it was a meaninless ritual and I don't think the Pope would like that.

Keep your nudie pictures. It is enough to demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are.
You just say that because you are too young to remember Annette on the Mouseketeers program.

Yeah, like I have anything to do with transexuals.
Well, you've had plenty to say to me on the subject, why is that, Nums?

Priests are evaluated according to intelligence. They undergo something like 10 years of training before being ordained as a priest.
I see in the paper just this morning that the Catholic church paid out $526 million last year to the victims of Catholic clergy.

Oh, and as for child molesters, I think you're quite safe from them. They prefer actual children -- not someone who only thinks like one.
Poor Nums, another cheap personal attack. Why is that?

Transexualism is a personal choice that can only do harm to the transexual.
Another case of you talking about something you know nothing about. I remember your post #87 on the Pope thread where you said you don't do that. Pony up here, Nums, why talk about trannies when you don't know about them?

How many personal life decisions do you suppose are there that requires a psych evaluation, hmmm?
Rather a lot of them actually, why if you were to get one before coming on these discussions sites and talking about things of which you are totally ignorant you might discover why you feel compelled to attack people you don't know for things you know nothing about, hmmmm?

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 09:57 AM

Correct.

It is NOT CONTEMPLATED with the assertion that 'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society'.

It wasn't that hard, was it?

I like it, Nums! They don't talk about it, which means that you get to read between the lines and decide what they meant when they didn't talk about it.

This is a great technique, let's see if I can use it too. Well, God didn't mention transsexuals in the Bible so that means that He expected everybody to realize that it was just a birth defect and be nice to them.

Knowing that you like this technique explains a lot about your posts.

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 10:00 AM

You wouldn't know. You have an iq that cannot even surpass that of most 10 year olds.

You mean a HOMOSEXUAL, pedophile priest? You tell me -- since you have at least 1/3 in common with these sort.

Golly, Nums, you're on a roll, two unsupported personal attacks in one post.

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 10:01 AM

But you answered, nonetheless.

I have to keep poking you to make you jump.:D

numinus

03-08-2008, 10:44 AM

Too bad you didn't read my post, Nums, my statement was "...the Pope would be real unhappy to hear you say that Communion was a meaningless ritual," and your wonderful definition didn't address the bet in any way. You posted that it was a meaninless ritual and I don't think the Pope would like that.

Duh uh.

I said:

"A catholic ritual is a symbolic act meant to convey a fundamental truth.

On its own, a ritual is meaningless."

Do you need lessons on the english language as well -- or do you just need to follow your own advice?

You just say that because you are too young to remember Annette on the Mouseketeers program.

I'm not a fan of pornography. But I see you are.

Well, you've had plenty to say to me on the subject, why is that, Nums?

I did? Remind me.

I see in the paper just this morning that the Catholic church paid out $526 million last year to the victims of Catholic clergy.

Would you like me to give you an equally meaningless statistic on the costs on the victims of aids?

Poor Nums, another cheap personal attack. Why is that?

Just the facts ma'm.

Another case of you talking about something you know nothing about. I remember your post #87 on the Pope thread where you said you don't do that. Pony up here, Nums, why talk about trannies when you don't know about them?

Refresh my memory.

Rather a lot of them actually, why if you were to get one before coming on these discussions sites and talking about things of which you are totally ignorant you might discover why you feel compelled to attack people you don't know for things you know nothing about, hmmmm?

And they are....?

numinus

03-08-2008, 10:52 AM

I like it, Nums! They don't talk about it, which means that you get to read between the lines and decide what they meant when they didn't talk about it.

It would be an absurd stretch to think that '...the NATURAL and fundamental group unit of society...' includes homosexual unions.

You can keep this up all day and it still be nonsense.

This is a great technique, let's see if I can use it too. Well, God didn't mention transsexuals in the Bible so that means that He expected everybody to realize that it was just a birth defect and be nice to them.

You're supposed to be nice to EVERYONE, even transexuals.

That doesn't mean you can marry them, now, does it?

You must be farting dust right about now trying to argue an absurd proposition.

Knowing that you like this technique explains a lot about your posts.

Its called logic. You might want to try it sometime.

numinus

03-08-2008, 10:53 AM

Golly, Nums, you're on a roll, two unsupported personal attacks in one post.

I aim to please.

numinus

03-08-2008, 10:54 AM

I have to keep poking you to make you jump.:D

If there is any poking going on around here, I believe I'd be the one doing it.

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 10:55 AM

"...a ritual is meaningless."

I'm not a fan of pornography. But I see you are.
I'm a fan of humor, but I see you aren't.

I did? Remind me.
Reread your posts about sexual preference, body mutilation, and all your comments about anal sex.

Would you like me to give you an equally meaningless statistic on the costs on the victims of aids?
The victims of AIDS are not claiming to have God's own truth while raping children like the pedophile priests are. Do you know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?

Just the facts ma'm. Refresh my memory. And they are....?
So now you are going to try to deny your own posts, kind of like Peter denying Jesus 3 times before the cock crowed, isn't it? It comes from a lack of courage in your convictions.

Coyote

03-08-2008, 10:59 AM

I'm kind of thinking you'd be heated first, actually.

That does it.

You are NOT invited to my barbecue!

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 11:03 AM

It would be an absurd stretch to think that '...the NATURAL and fundamental group unit of society...' includes homosexual unions.
Because you say it's absurd doesn't make it absurd. Bible-beaters like you claimed that equality for women was absurd too because it was obvious that women were different and therefore not equal. You folks did the same thing to black people when they wanted to enjoy legal equality. Do we see a pattern here?

You're supposed to be nice to EVERYONE, even transexuals. That doesn't mean you can marry them, now, does it?
And why shouldn't transsexuals be married? There is no requirement for children in marriage, only love.

You must be farting dust right about now trying to argue an absurd proposition.
For a person who claims to have no interest in pornography, you certainly have a profane vocabulary.

Its called logic. You might want to try it sometime.
It's called "convenient logic" and by using it I discovered that God doesn't like you, He didn't say it in the Bible but He meant it.:D

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 11:05 AM

I aim to please.

I bet that's what you tell your wife too after she has to clean up around the toilet.:)

Coyote

03-08-2008, 11:06 AM

Transexualism is a personal choice that can only do harm to the transexual.

Is it? There's no definate consensus there....and the more we research the human brain and it's evolution...the less some things seem like "choices".

The only choice may be whether or not to "choose" to act on an inate and biological orientation. Transexualism has long been recognized in many human cultures and in some cases revered, in some reviled.

According to: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034

Studies indicate that transsexualism is connected with a difference in the human brain called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis. In one study, male-to-female transsexuals and cisgendered women were shown to have brains that were similar to each other in the BSTc area of the brain. Both heterosexual and homosexual men showed male brain structuring in this area.

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 11:06 AM

If there is any poking going on around here, I believe I'd be the one doing it.

First you tell us that you have lots of sperm and now you're bragging about your "poking" abilities, do you have some kind of priapic fixation?

Coyote

03-08-2008, 11:08 AM

That is a moral imperative as well.

If living a life guided by compassion (and by association, empathy) is a moral imperative then how can you justify a condemnation of homosexuality given that most research appears to show it is not a "choice"?

Coyote

03-08-2008, 11:09 AM

The ribs are particularly good -- so they say.

Hands off my ribs. I'm way too ticklish.

You're not invited to my barbecue either.

numinus

03-08-2008, 11:42 AM

I'm a fan of humor, but I see you aren't.

It's simple propositional logic composed of a premise and its logical conclusion.

Reread your posts about sexual preference, body mutilation, and all your comments about anal sex.[/QUOTE]

What about them? Are they not factual statements?

The victims of AIDS are not claiming to have God's own truth while raping children like the pedophile priests are. Do you know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?

Sure do.

Are you saying that priests who molest children are hypocrites? I'd be the first to agree.

Or are you saying that all catholic priests are hypocrites? That would be a blatant fallacy.

So now you are going to try to deny your own posts, kind of like Peter denying Jesus 3 times before the cock crowed, isn't it? It comes from a lack of courage in your convictions.

There is no sense in this 'he said, she said' charade.

numinus

03-08-2008, 11:52 AM

Because you say it's absurd doesn't make it absurd. Bible-beaters like you claimed that equality for women was absurd too because it was obvious that women were different and therefore not equal. You folks did the same thing to black people when they wanted to enjoy legal equality. Do we see a pattern here?

The key word is 'NATURAL'.

There is nothing in the english language to suggest that homosexuals unions are 'natural and fundamental' group units of society.

And why shouldn't transsexuals be married? There is no requirement for children in marriage, only love.

Where does it say that the ONLY requirement to enter into a marriage is love, hmmm?

For a person who claims to have no interest in pornography, you certainly have a profane vocabulary.

I reserve it for the hopelessly ignorant.

It's called "convenient logic" and by using it I discovered that God doesn't like you, He didn't say it in the Bible but He meant it.:D

And in all probability, he would have very compelling reasons to dislike me. Being a liar isn't one of them.

numinus

03-08-2008, 11:52 AM

I bet that's what you tell your wife too after she has to clean up around the toilet.:)

I treat my wife like a queen, fyi.

numinus

03-08-2008, 11:54 AM

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 11:54 AM

I treat my wife like a queen, fyi.

Drag queen?:D

numinus

03-08-2008, 11:56 AM

If living a life guided by compassion (and by association, empathy) is a moral imperative then how can you justify a condemnation of homosexuality given that most research appears to show it is not a "choice"?

Defining marriage as a legal institution is not a condemnationg of homosexuality.

numinus

03-08-2008, 11:56 AM

Hands off my ribs. I'm way too ticklish.

You're not invited to my barbecue either.

Pity. I know a good recipe for ribs.

Coyote

03-08-2008, 11:58 AM

Pity. I know a good recipe for ribs.

sigh...well....maybe....

Coyote

03-08-2008, 11:59 AM

Defining marriage as a legal institution is not a condemnationg of homosexuality.

That is true....

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 12:18 PM

I meant the medical procedure undertaken to change one's gender. That's a personal choice.

A medical procedure to fix a club foot or cleft palate, or laser surgery for bad eyesight, or any number of other medical procedures are choices too. Are you stating--as the Church used to--that any corrective medical treatment is sinful? Or are you singling out just transsexual surgery? If so, why? I keep asking why you are so unhappy with us since there's nothing in the Bible about transsexuality.

Mare Tranquillity

03-08-2008, 12:19 PM

Defining marriage as a legal institution is not a condemnationg of homosexuality.

It can be if you write your definition specifically to do that.

numinus

03-09-2008, 07:15 AM

A medical procedure to fix a club foot or cleft palate, or laser surgery for bad eyesight, or any number of other medical procedures are choices too. Are you stating--as the Church used to--that any corrective medical treatment is sinful?

No. I was merely wondering if you need a psych evaluation for this -- unlike club foot, cleft palate, etc. etc., which you obviously don't. I asked because I read it somewhere a long time ago.

I see that no answer is forthcoming.

Or are you singling out just transsexual surgery?

No, as stated above.

If so, why?

Since the answer is no, then this question isn't necessary.

I keep asking why you are so unhappy with us since there's nothing in the Bible about transsexuality.

What a forest of meandering illogic your mind is!

numinus

03-09-2008, 07:16 AM

It can be if you write your definition specifically to do that.

You don't know the laws that govern the marital institution presently?

numinus

03-09-2008, 07:26 AM

Is it? There's no definate consensus there....and the more we research the human brain and it's evolution...the less some things seem like "choices".

The only choice may be whether or not to "choose" to act on an inate and biological orientation. Transexualism has long been recognized in many human cultures and in some cases revered, in some reviled.

According to: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034

Studies indicate that transsexualism is connected with a difference in the human brain called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis. In one study, male-to-female transsexuals and cisgendered women were shown to have brains that were similar to each other in the BSTc area of the brain. Both heterosexual and homosexual men showed male brain structuring in this area.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:

· Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

· Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

· The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

· Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

· Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

· Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."

MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES

Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

Coyote

03-09-2008, 08:16 AM

The Family Research Center is a pretty biased source....with a very clear anti-homosexual agenda. I did try to pick neutral sources when making my argument.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind:

Pedophilia is concerned primarily with pre-adolescent children. It's called something else when you enter adolescence and then you start getting into a grey area - such as statuatory rape and the characteristcs of the offender are different.

Sex crimes against children and adolescents are committed primarily by men. No surprise there. However - as that one article showed, most of those men are heterosexual in orientation even if they preyed upon a male child.

Thus - even if most cases are committed against boys - that doesn't mean the perpetrator was homosexual.

9sublime

03-09-2008, 08:19 AM

Jarlaxle

03-09-2008, 08:19 AM

Drag queen?:D

You owe me a keyboard if I can't get the coffee out of this one!

Coyote

03-09-2008, 08:23 AM

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

· Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

· The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

· Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

See, right here you've got a fallacy: that men that commit sex crimes against male children are homosexual in outlook. In addition the author is likely lumping adolescents and children in one group to make his point when the causes and characteristics differ enough that there is a different term for it.

Coyote

03-09-2008, 08:25 AM

I don't see how a man choosing to have intercourse with a male, child or adult, means he is not homosexual. If you are a man, and you actively decide to go and shag a male child because of the pleasure, you have homosexual preferences and tendancies. Unless you are SO desperate you'll do it even though you find it disgusting.

Not necessarily. Do you look at a child and see a man or a woman? There are no sexual characteristics in a child. I think that is the point being made.

In one study - many of the male offenders identified themselves as heterosexuals and were involved in a heterosexual relationship.

Coyote

03-09-2008, 08:27 AM

By the way - I am not in any way defending the practice!

But I think one needs to be fair and accurate in labeling such things or you end up with the kind of mentality that leads to witch hunts and genocide.

Jarlaxle

03-09-2008, 08:29 AM

...which is what plenty of the homophobes WANT, whether they admit it or not.

Coyote

03-09-2008, 08:31 AM

numinus

03-09-2008, 08:34 AM

numinus

03-09-2008, 08:45 AM

See, right here you've got a fallacy: that men that commit sex crimes against male children are homosexual in outlook. In addition the author is likely lumping adolescents and children in one group to make his point when the causes and characteristics differ enough that there is a different term for it.

I'm sorry but the statistic is quite clear. Unless of course you can show statistics that pedophile females account for the majority of sexual molestation in boys.

numinus

03-09-2008, 08:48 AM

Drag queen?:D

I should've guessed you're infatuated with me.

Coyote

03-09-2008, 08:56 AM

I'm sorry but the statistic is quite clear. Unless of course you can show statistics that pedophile females account for the majority of sexual molestation in boys.

I showed you an article - that came from a neutral source and showed that the majority of men in that one survey, who committed molestation against boys were heterosexual.

I am not arguing that females account for much of anything in this.

What you are trying to say is:

any man who commits any sort of sexual act with another male is a homosexual

does that mean any man who commits any sort of sexual act with a female is heterosexual?

what does that say about those who do both, or primarily one or the other?

for example - if a man is heterosexual in self-identification and adult relationships and molests a little boy - does that then make him homosexual?

Homosexual is both an adjective and a noun. The noun applies to a very small percentage of the overall population. The adjective describes the act, not the orientation necessarily.

numinus

03-09-2008, 08:59 AM

Pedophilia is the modern witch hunt. It's a crime that so offends us, our culture, our sensabilities, frightens parents and is socially abhorrent that all reason flies when accusations are made. It is very like the Salem witch trial events.

It is a fact. However one wants to interpret fact is not my concern. My main concern is to demonstrate how mare interprets fact in a way that does not coincide with logic.

Mare assumes that my being catholic necessarily follows that I argue on the basis of catholic dogma. It doesn't matter how many times I post the udhr, I am still a bible-beater trying to impose my religion on everyone else.

Coyote

03-09-2008, 09:05 AM

It is a fact. However one wants to interpret fact is not my concern. My main concern is to demonstrate how mare interprets fact in a way that does not coincide with logic.

Well...I think you're doing a bit of that too...

Mare assumes that my being catholic necessarily follows that I argue on the basis of catholic dogma. It doesn't matter how many times I post the udhr, I am still a bible-beater trying to impose my religion on everyone else.

That is true. I'll be the first to agree that you (and Pale as well) avoid bringing religion into your arguments. It's actually rather refreshing as there is nothing worse then the dead end of "well the bible says so so it's true" type of debate.

numinus

03-09-2008, 09:14 AM

numinus

03-09-2008, 09:21 AM

Well...I think you're doing a bit of that too...

Not at all. I brought this child molestation thing up to demonstrate what I said I wanted to demonstrate. Nothing more.

I have said before that I have homosexual friends. Their sexual preference neither bothers me nor hinders my friendship with them.

Coyote

03-09-2008, 09:40 AM

By definition, yes.

A bi.

Then he is neither homo or hetero.

I do not see the point in muddling the issue. What do you call a woman who masturbates with a dildo? From your reasoning -- neither, since the object of pleasure is a thing.

So, what exactly is a sexual orientation?

It isn't muddying the issue to seek clear terminology.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with masturbating with a dildo - apples and oranges.

What exactly is sexual orientation? That is a good question with no clear-cut answers. For example - it's not uncommon for adolescents to sexually experiment with the same sex. Does that make them bi or homo if in adulthood they remain hetero?

Wikipedia defines it as follows:

Sexual orientation refers to "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others,"[1] usually conceived of as classifiable according to the sex or gender of the persons whom the individual finds sexually attractive. The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex).[1]

Most definitions of sexual orientation include a psychological component (such as the direction of an individual's erotic desire) and/or a behavioral component (which focuses on the sex of the individual's sexual partner/s). Some prefer simply to follow an individual's self-definition or identity.

More recently, scholars of sexology, anthropology and history have argued that social categories such as heterosexual and homosexual are not universal. Different societies may consider other criteria to be more significant than sex, including the respective age of the partners, the sexual role played by each partner (such as active or passive), or the social status of the partners.

Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished, with identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and orientation referring to "fantasies, attachments and longings."[2] Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.[3] People whose sexual identity does not align with their sexual orientation are sometimes referred to as closeted.

Sexual identity may also be used to describe a person's perception of his or her own sex, rather than sexual orientation. The term sexual preference has a similar meaning to sexual orientation, but is more commonly used outside of scientific circles by people who believe that sexual orientation is, in whole or part, a matter of choice.

numinus

03-09-2008, 09:59 AM

Then he is neither homo or hetero.

It isn't muddying the issue to seek clear terminology.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with masturbating with a dildo - apples and oranges.

What exactly is sexual orientation? That is a good question with no clear-cut answers. For example - it's not uncommon for adolescents to sexually experiment with the same sex. Does that make them bi or homo if in adulthood they remain hetero?

Wikipedia defines it as follows:

Sexual orientation refers to "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others,"[1] usually conceived of as classifiable according to the sex or gender of the persons whom the individual finds sexually attractive. The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) to exclusive homosexuality (being sexually attracted to members of the same sex) and includes various forms of bisexuality (being sexually attracted to members of either sex).[1]

Most definitions of sexual orientation include a psychological component (such as the direction of an individual's erotic desire) and/or a behavioral component (which focuses on the sex of the individual's sexual partner/s). Some prefer simply to follow an individual's self-definition or identity.

More recently, scholars of sexology, anthropology and history have argued that social categories such as heterosexual and homosexual are not universal. Different societies may consider other criteria to be more significant than sex, including the respective age of the partners, the sexual role played by each partner (such as active or passive), or the social status of the partners.

Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished, with identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and orientation referring to "fantasies, attachments and longings."[2] Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.[3] People whose sexual identity does not align with their sexual orientation are sometimes referred to as closeted.

Sexual identity may also be used to describe a person's perception of his or her own sex, rather than sexual orientation. The term sexual preference has a similar meaning to sexual orientation, but is more commonly used outside of scientific circles by people who believe that sexual orientation is, in whole or part, a matter of choice.

And a child molester preying on boys isn't an '...enduring sexual attraction...'?

Coyote

03-09-2008, 10:06 AM

And a child molester preying on boys isn't an '...enduring sexual attraction...'?

To children.

Mare Tranquillity

03-09-2008, 11:04 AM

No. I was merely wondering if you need a psych evaluation for this -- unlike club foot, cleft palate, etc. etc., which you obviously don't. I asked because I read it somewhere a long time ago.

I see that no answer is forthcoming.

I actually answered this question quite a while ago when you first brought it up. Gender Dysphoria can be caused by a number of things, before one is allowed to transition it's required by the AMA guidelines (the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care) for each person to have so many months of Master's level counseling and follow-up with a Doctorate level counselor before reassignment surgery. Before, during and after counseling is very beneficial because transition is quite difficult--primarilly due to the extreme level of cultural antagonism and the complex and contadictory laws that vary from state to state and are sometimes in conflict with Federal regulations.

As I said before, Nums, I know a lot about this subject and I'm willing to share the information I have if someone asks honest questions.

Mare Tranquillity

03-09-2008, 11:09 AM

You don't know the laws that govern the marital institution presently?

The laws vary from place to place, from time to time, and there are secular laws and religious laws, national laws and international agreements. Depending on the arena in which you are operating one can define things differently. A case in point is that in two States it is legal for gay people to marry, in several States they can have civil unions, but in two thirds of the States there are constitutional bans on gay marriage--but some of those States allow civil unions and some do not. Your question was black and white, but the answer cannot be.

Mare Tranquillity

03-09-2008, 11:42 AM

I should've guessed you're infatuated with me.

Actually, I'm happily and legally married, Nums. It wasn't me that started the discussion of "queens". In people exhibiting rabid homophobia there is very often an undercurrent of homosexual desire or at least curiousity and their extreme reaction to gay people is an attempt to deny something they find in themselves.

This a common over-compensation response found in people. Many of the male to female transsexuals got involved in the most macho activities they could find in an attempt to deny who they really were. You'll find us in the military, special forces, construction, logging, and the police. We often engage in dangerous sports too, I raced motocross and cross-country motorcycles for years, many of us practice martial arts. We struggle to be what our family's and our culture expects and demands of us till we simply get worn out and can't fight anymore. Nearly 1/3 of transsexuals commit suicide by the age of 30 because they simply cannot find a place for themselves in a culture that hates and fears them.

The website you're posting your stats from is not a dependable one. The statistics can be manipulated to prove almost anything if you're clever enough. The whole propaganda war about homosexuals being child molestors was started in the late seventies by Anita Bryant's Christian group in Florida. They did the same thing that the KKK did for black/jazz music. The storm of negative information about black people's music being Satanic was completely false and started by the KKK back in the 1920's when black musicians began to gain great popularity. The KKK applied the "Satanic" label to black music in an attempt to reduce its appeal to the general population--didn't work worth a durn though. But in the 50's and 60's Christian fundamentalist revived the idea of "Satanic" music and applied it to rock and roll. They were slightly more successful than the KKK, but in the end it didn't accomplish what they hoped.

Mare Tranquillity

03-09-2008, 11:51 AM

I showed you an article - that came from a neutral source and showed that the majority of men in that one survey, who committed molestation against boys were heterosexual.

I am not arguing that females account for much of anything in this.

What you are trying to say is:

any man who commits any sort of sexual act with another male is a homosexual

does that mean any man who commits any sort of sexual act with a female is heterosexual?

what does that say about those who do both, or primarily one or the other?

for example - if a man is heterosexual in self-identification and adult relationships and molests a little boy - does that then make him homosexual?

Homosexual is both an adjective and a noun. The noun applies to a very small percentage of the overall population. The adjective describes the act, not the orientation necessarily.

The approach that Nums is using is very similar to the one that racists used. It used to be that if you had ONE drop of provable black blood in your body you were black. This completely ignored the truth that we are all mixed and the idea of racial purity is a complete fantasy.

Now, if you have any homosexual contact ever, then you are a homosexual. It's as fallacious a concept as racial purity. Sexuality is far more fluid than the "black and white" thinking people want to admit, it scares them. The claim that 1/3 of all child molestations are done by homosexual males is another example of "racial purity" thinking not supported by any of the real mainstream researchers, it's simply a "claim" by people with a religious axe to grind. Let's all remember that these same people will tell you that all transsexuals are homosexual too--more "racial purity" thinking.

Mare Tranquillity

03-09-2008, 11:53 AM

It is a fact. However one wants to interpret fact is not my concern. My main concern is to demonstrate how mare interprets fact in a way that does not coincide with logic.

Mare assumes that my being catholic necessarily follows that I argue on the basis of catholic dogma. It doesn't matter how many times I post the udhr, I am still a bible-beater trying to impose my religion on everyone else.

You are a Bible-beater redefining the UDHR wording to bring it in line with Catholic dogma. You admit that it doesn't say anything about homosexual people, but yet you still want to use it to deny them equality.

Mare Tranquillity

03-09-2008, 11:55 AM

Well...I think you're doing a bit of that too...

That is true. I'll be the first to agree that you (and Pale as well) avoid bringing religion into your arguments. It's actually rather refreshing as there is nothing worse then the dead end of "well the bible says so so it's true" type of debate.

How many times has Nums mentioned the Pope and asked if someone has read that encyclical?

Mare Tranquillity

03-09-2008, 11:57 AM

Not at all. I brought this child molestation thing up to demonstrate what I said I wanted to demonstrate. Nothing more.

I have said before that I have homosexual friends. Their sexual preference neither bothers me nor hinders my friendship with them.

But you would still deny them legal equality? Yes or no?

Coyote

03-09-2008, 01:04 PM

How many times has Nums mentioned the Pope and asked if someone has read that encyclical?

I think he mentioned the Pope once in this thread and twice in the Traditional Family thread...lots of overlap in those threads.

I think you might be bringing the Pope up a bit more frequently then Numinus;)

Mare Tranquillity

03-09-2008, 01:20 PM

I think he mentioned the Pope once in this thread and twice in the Traditional Family thread...lots of overlap in those threads.

I think you might be bringing the Pope up a bit more frequently then Numinus;)

Have you read what this Pope has said about us? He colluded with the Nazis during WWII I understand, so he must be a nice guy. Is Nums arguing for the Pope's religious perspective?

There are thousands of people chopping at the branches of the tree of evil for each person chopping at the roots. Religion is the justification for the hatred visited on us by this culture. Leaving out religion doesn't let us address the underlying motivation.

Have you seen any logical argument from Nums that convinces you that gay or transpeople should be denied equality? What do you see Nums presenting that is NOT based in religious bigotry, anything?

If I'm wrong, in your opinion, and Nums is presenting logical evidence to prove the propriety of denied equality then please show it to me. If it's correct I'll aplogize to Nums on the thread.

Coyote

03-09-2008, 04:06 PM

Have you read what this Pope has said about us? He colluded with the Nazis during WWII I understand, so he must be a nice guy. Is Nums arguing for the Pope's religious perspective?

I can't answer as to that but Numinus did say:

I'm a nominal catholic. I simply cannot abide sitting in church for two hours every week. And if the present pope gets his way, I'll probably be among the first to get excommunicated.

It can't be helped, I suppose.

and

I'm not a fan of this particular pope but one simply cannot argue the impecable logic applied in the encyclical that this is based on.

And in latin, no less -- the language of god himself.

Which sounds as if he respects the logic of the writing.

There are thousands of people chopping at the branches of the tree of evil for each person chopping at the roots. Religion is the justification for the hatred visited on us by this culture. Leaving out religion doesn't let us address the underlying motivation.

Religion and logic are two different things though not exclusive of each other. I don't think Numinus is arguing from a religious perspective but from a logical one. We may not agree - I don't, but I see where he is coming from.

Have you seen any logical argument from Nums that convinces you that gay or transpeople should be denied equality? What do you see Nums presenting that is NOT based in religious bigotry, anything?

No - I have not seen anything exactly convincing me that gay or transexuals should be denied equality in terms of civil rights as I view marriage in some form as one of those civil rights. It doesn't have to be marriage per se - other societies who sanctified various same sex relationships gave called those unions by different terms then male/female marriages. As long as the union confers the same rights and priveledges and legal recognition that "marriage" does - then I'm fine with it. But I don't see Numinus arguing from religion but rather from logic. I don't agree with his conclusions, and I wish he were arguing from a religious doctrine because it is much easier to refute the blatent hypocrisy of religion.

If I'm wrong, in your opinion, and Nums is presenting logical evidence to prove the propriety of denied equality then please show it to me. If it's correct I'll aplogize to Nums on the thread.

Numinus is presenting a logical reason for marriage in that marriage is based on the natural rights of a woman to start a family. In a sense he is right - what other logical reasons for marriage are there? Yet - our society is based on equality and especially an equality of civil rights. Our state confers special benefits upon married heterosexual couples that are denied homosexuals without an arduous and expensive process. That is wrong. But that is my opinion. I can't refute Numinus' logic - only his conclusions because in the end, I feel it more important that compassion be exersized then logic. IMO:p

Mare Tranquillity

03-09-2008, 05:08 PM

Numinus is presenting a logical reason for marriage in that marriage is based on the natural rights of a woman to start a family. In a sense he is right - what other logical reasons for marriage are there? Yet - our society is based on equality and especially an equality of civil rights. Our state confers special benefits upon married heterosexual couples that are denied homosexuals without an arduous and expensive process. That is wrong. But that is my opinion. I can't refute Numinus' logic - only his conclusions because in the end, I feel it more important that compassion be exersized then logic. IMO:p

I know of no society with a legal requirement for the production of progeny and that will annul any marriage that does not produce them.

I know of no modern (or even ancient) marriage vows that require production of progeny, I've never even seen a marriage vow that mentioned children as a necessity.

This is an argument that is applied ONLY to homosexual and transsexual people, it is a double standard unless it is applied to sterile heterosexuals and people who simply don't want to have kids. The reason for this double standard is religious because there are no logical reasons why homosexual people cannot marry and raise children just like sterile heterosexuals do.

Are you really tellling me that you believe that the "natural right of a woman to start a family" is in ANY way affected by gay marriage? What about the rights of lesbian women?

And finally, to say that the only "logical" reason for marriage is this "natural right..." denies all the other reasons for which people have married all down through history. Love, companionship, committment, security, and all the legal rights and privileges that accrue to married people.

I'm sorry Coyote, but that's not logic, there are simply too many people who marry for too many reasons to suddenly decide that there can only be one logical reason to marry and that logical reason is the one dictated by the church.

If I was in Nums shoes I would deny my religious agenda too, you can't support it. I too, would try to use some specious reasoning to defend my viewpoint. Do you remember what the racists used when it was no longer enough to have the Bible justification for slavery? With the use of pseudo science that managed to show that black people were not as evolutionarilly developed as white people, they weren't as intelligent, they were closer to animals, etc. Some people bought that too, but we know better now.

(Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I had to go for a bike ride.:) )

Mare Tranquillity

03-09-2008, 05:27 PM

Coyote,
When there is only one God, our God.
When there is only one way to God/Heaven, our way.
When there is only one right, the way we do it.
When there is only one reason to exist, to worship our God.
When there is only one reason to marry, to produce progeny.
When there can be only ONE, that's religion. And it denies all the rest of us our humanity and our God-given free-will.

You can follow the "logic" of Nums' to the end that has been suggested by some religious folks. Logically there is no reason for homosexual people to live at all, the Bible demands their deaths. Why in the world would people like Nums who believe that all homosexuals are child molestors let homosexual people live if they had the chance to kill them with God's authority? The Bible credits God with commanding genocide many times. What keeps the "logic" from working to this end?

I think the idea that with more than 6 billion people on this planet that there can be only ONE reason for anything is not logical. And certainly something as personal and intimate as loving realtionships can have more than one logical basis.

numinus

03-10-2008, 05:49 AM

I know of no society with a legal requirement for the production of progeny and that will annul any marriage that does not produce them.

I know of no modern (or even ancient) marriage vows that require production of progeny, I've never even seen a marriage vow that mentioned children as a necessity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullity_%28conflict%29

Impotence or willful refusal to consummate

This is an aspect of the general legal topic of capacity, and it affects essential validity because, in many states, the policy is that marriage is for the procreation of children. Thus, if one spouse has a permanent physical condition at the time of the ceremony which prevents sexual intercourse, this may void the marriage, make the marriage voidable, or require a divorce decree. The willful refusal by one party to consummate the marriage will not usually be a ground for annulment since this is a question of behaviour rather than capacity and so becomes a matter for divorce. Given the improvement in medical science, the number of conditions producing impotence which cannot be treated with some degree of success is declining. Hence, most modern legal cases must now rely on the ground of the affected party's willful refusal to seek remedial treatment and deal with the case to reflect the fact that the marriage has not been consummated. The fact that one of the parties may be infertile and so cannot produce children is not relevant under this heading although it may be relevant if specific representations have been made to induce the marriage and so affect the validity of consent.

Have it ever occured to you that if you know no such marriages, then perhaps you are merely ignorant about the marriage institution?

numinus

03-10-2008, 06:09 AM

But you would still deny them legal equality? Yes or no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

According to the eminent Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, equality before the law and material equality are incompatible, arguing that material inequality is a natural consequence of legal equality: "From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

The rule of law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.