chrysostom

ok doser

Well-known member
:think: Or it confirms that children shouldn’t be having sex OR marrying. Any adult who would marry a child (and have sex with them) would be a predator because children do not have the ability to consent.

When SHOULD a female be allowed to marry?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Reminds me of the duck-picking threads... :plain:

Remember Robertson's quote?

'Look, you wait until they get to be 20-years-old, the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket,'

'You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16, they’ll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that of course.'

Ain't that Christian morality in action?

:cloud9:

Oh, but apparently they don't even need to be that old...
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
Remember Robertson's quote?

'Look, you wait until they get to be 20-years-old, the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket,'

'You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16, they’ll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that of course.'

Ain't that Christian morality in action?

:cloud9:

Oh, but apparently they don't even need to be that old...

Oh, I remember. I think all the Phil Robertson threads have been pruned, I had one I think was "you got to marry these girls when they are 15, 16" but I don't see it anymore, or any of the other threads that cropped up around it, at least not with the search terms I used. I remember several arguing that if 12,13 was good enough for Mary to marry Joseph it was good enough for any young Christian girl to handed over by her father for marriage to a nice Christian man. I couldn't believe we were arguing with Christians that you don't marry off kids - if I recall, one of their arguments was about doing it before they 'got into trouble.'
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Oh, I remember. I think all the Phil Robertson threads have been pruned, I had one I think was "you got to marry these girls when they are 15, 16" but I don't see it anymore, or any of the other threads that cropped up around it, at least not with the search terms I used. I remember several arguing that if 12,13 was good enough for Mary to marry Joseph it was good enough for any young Christian girl to handed over by her father for marriage to a nice Christian man. I couldn't believe we were arguing with Christians that you don't marry off kids - if I recall, one of their arguments was about doing it before they 'got into trouble.'

That rings a bell with me too, it was kinda jaw dropping, especially in relation to some of the hypocrisy regarding legal acceptance of homosexuality opening the floodgates to paedophilia...

:plain:
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Like rape.

Except you can't apply human standards of morality onto animals unless you wanna go down the anthropomorphism route? That falls apart when you have people deciding that kids as young as five should be tried and killed as if they're as developed as adults and married off before they've even had their tenth birthday. Or do you go along with JR?
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Except you can't apply human standards of morality onto animals unless you wanna go down the anthropomorphism route? That falls apart when you have people deciding that kids as young as five should be tried and killed as if they're as developed as adults and married off before they've even had their tenth birthday. Or do you go along with JR?
If you can't apply human standards of morality onto animals, then we're also not going to apply animal standards of morality onto humans either. So we're agreed that regarding homosexual behavior that animals are irrelevant. It has nothing to do with animals.
That falls apart when you have people deciding that kids as young as five should be tried and killed as if they're as developed as adults and married off before they've even had their tenth birthday. Or do you go along with JR?
Should parents be allowed to teach their own children, when they're well below the age of reason or consent, a religion? Isn't it dangerous to inculcate kids on something so formative as religion or politics before they know how to think critically?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
If you can't apply human standards of morality onto animals, then we're also not going to apply animal standards of morality onto humans either. So we're agreed that regarding homosexual behavior that animals are irrelevant. It has nothing to do with animals.

What "animal standards of morality" are you even talking about?

Should parents be allowed to teach their own children, when they're well below the age of reason or consent, a religion? Isn't it dangerous to inculcate kids on something so formative as religion or politics before they know how to think critically?

I don't believe in indoctrinating children full stop. Teaching children morality and ethics is far from the likes of blasting religious and political dogma at them. Encouraging children to think for themselves is a good thing. Now, do you go along with JR with his comments on here?
 

Idolater

Well-known member
What "animal standards of morality" are you even talking about?
"If it's such an abomination then why is it observable throughout nature?" Just coz an animal does something doesn't legitimize anything. It follows, because of all the terrible things that animals do.
I don't believe in indoctrinating children full stop. Teaching children morality and ethics is far from the likes of blasting religious and political dogma at them.
The Chinese regime believes that Christian parents who teach their own children Christian faith are committing a crime.

They also censor anything critical of their regime and punish those who persist in doing it.
Encouraging children to think for themselves is a good thing. Now, do you go along with JR with his comments on here?
What comments.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
The Chinese regime believes that Christian parents who teach their own children Christian faith are committing a crime.


They're not all that stoked about moosies either. Over a million ethnic Uighurs in reeducation camps for the past couple of years - men women children infants frail elderly. But the trump haters are happy to ignore them.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
They're not all that stoked about moosies either. Over a million ethnic Uighurs in reeducation camps for the past couple of years - men women children infants frail elderly. But the trump haters are happy to ignore them.
Yep. China's the world's worst "emitter" when it comes to the climate crisis too, but you don't see AOC and Greta von Go Home rallying for war with them do you. Coz climate change isn't an existential threat, never was, never can be, total lie, not even an exaggeration, just a lie. If it was actually as serious as they say then of course you go to war over emissions. If you don't, then we all die. That's definitely not true.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
"If it's such an abomination then why is it observable throughout nature?" Just coz an animal does something doesn't legitimize anything. It follows, because of all the terrible things that animals do.

How is homosexuality a "terrible thing"? What, did you wake up one morning and decide to be straight? If you want to talk about 'terrible' then look at the amount of insidious persecution homosexuals have had to face throughout history including death camps.

The Chinese regime believes that Christian parents who teach their own children Christian faith are committing a crime.

They also censor anything critical of their regime and punish those who persist in doing it.

Any regime that is totalitarian in nature is abhorrent.

What comments.

Just look back over the last two or three pages. They're not hard to find...
 

Idolater

Well-known member
How is homosexuality a "terrible thing"?
I, didn't even say that it was. I said that because of all the terrible things that animals do, that them doing something like homosexual behavior doesn't legitimize homosexual behavior.
What, did you wake up one morning and decide to be straight? If you want to talk about 'terrible' then look at the amount of insidious persecution homosexuals have had to face throughout history including death camps.
You're putting words into my mouth but people who commit offenses against chastity still have all the same rights that the rest of us do, so I agree that they've been targeted by rights violators, and that is immoral and criminal.
Any regime that is totalitarian in nature is abhorrent.
Illiberality is abhorrent to me. If there were a totalitarian liberal regime I could probably get on board. I'd have to think about what that means, and that it's not contradictory, but assuming it's not I might actually be a totalitarian liberal.

After the Civil War and WWII American liberal forces occupied the former and short-lived Confederacy, Germany, and Japan, forcing them to enact and obey liberal laws. I don't know that occupation is necessarily totalitarian, but those weren't exactly democratic conditions.
Just look back over the last two or three pages. They're not hard to find...
That user sometimes penalizes me for no reason or purpose, so maybe I'll stay out of anything this close to him or her. I can discuss it with you but if he or she gets involved I'll probably have to bow out.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
After the Civil War and WWII American liberal forces occupied the former and short-lived Confederacy, Germany, and Japan, forcing them to enact and obey liberal laws. I don't know that occupation is necessarily totalitarian, but those weren't exactly democratic conditions.

Interesting consideration. I'll have to chew on it.


There's a parallel in the Soviet occupation of East Germany during the cold war. At some point in that experience it went sideways.
 
Top