For "Gay Marriage" But Against Father Marrying Son?

[aCultureWarrior]

Anyone can ask me anything, anytime and I won't cower from answering.

Another difference between the two of us.

Is that why you always blow smokescreens when a certain sexual sin is brought up?

I'd respect you if you were at least honest about your views. You're open about your dope pushing. You're open about abortion, why can't you be about homosexuality?

Don't be ashamed, it's 2013, where everyone's opinion and values are accepted.

 

[WizardofOz]

Is that why you always blow smokescreens when a certain sexual sin is brought up?

I'd respect you if you were at least honest about your views. You're open about your dope pushing. You're open about abortion, why can't you be about homosexuality?

Don't be ashamed, it's 2013, where everyone's opinion and values are accepted.

You're too much of a coward to answer questions in one thread so you follow me here. That is a smokescreen, alaCarte.

Have I been anything less than completely open and honest about any of my views? Do you have even one example or do you have something you would like to ask me?

Vague declarations - another alaCarte smokescreen tactic.

 

[Angel4Truth]

My answer: gross

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Is that why you always blow smokescreens when a certain sexual sin is brought up?

I'd respect you if you were at least honest about your views. You're open about your dope pushing. You're open about abortion, why can't you be about homosexuality?

Don't be ashamed, it's 2013, where everyone's opinion and values are accepted.

You're too much of a coward to answer questions in one thread so you follow me here. That is a smokescreen, alaCarte.

Actually I peeked in to see what kind of Libertarian insanity you were talking about and saw xA's post, which I agreed with:

Originally Posted by xAvarice
I have to admit, you make me joyfully uncomfortable with your style of debate,
I struggle to interact with you because I can't be quite sure what you believe and
what you're playing the advocate for...

I'm really not interested in debating irrelevant topics that deal with blasphemy laws and at what age should people be allowed to marry (being that people will be marrying even less now that sodomites are part of the institution, it's a non-issue).

And again, your obsession with a big burly ex professional football player is downright creepy Aaaaaron.

If you were to contact any of the sodomites in the Seattle area and ask them if Pastor Ken Hutcherson is a promoter of the homosexual lifestyle and agenda, they'd laugh in your face (and then probably ask you out).

Have I been anything less than completely open and honest about any of my views? Do you have even one example or do you have something you would like to ask me?

Yes, since this is a thread started by you about homosexuality, I'll ask the following:

1) What is your moral view of homosexuality? Since you acknowledge that God sets the standard for moral behavior for all, I would assume that you'd agree that it is a sin.

2)Do you believe that there is a well orchestrated agenda that is advancing the homosexual lifestyle?

3)Would it not be beneficial to recriminalize homosexuality if your answer to the above is "yes"?

4) You claim to be anti abortion; how would you propose to recriminalize abortion, while at the same time allowing other sexual sins to flourish?

The floor is yours WoO.

 

[WizardofOz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Is that why you always blow smokescreens when a certain sexual sin is brought up?

I'd respect you if you were at least honest about your views. You're open about your dope pushing. You're open about abortion, why can't you be about homosexuality?

Don't be ashamed, it's 2013, where everyone's opinion and values are accepted.



Actually I peeked in to see what kind of Libertarian insanity you were talking about and saw xA's post, which I agreed with:

Originally Posted by xAvarice
I have to admit, you make me joyfully uncomfortable with your style of debate,
I struggle to interact with you because I can't be quite sure what you believe and
what you're playing the advocate for...

I'm really not interested in debating irrelevant topics that deal with blasphemy laws and at what age should people be allowed to marry (being that people will be marrying even less now that sodomites are part of the institution, it's a non-issue).

And again, your obsession with a big burly ex professional football player is downright creepy Aaaaaron.

If you were to contact any of the sodomites in the Seattle area and ask them if Pastor Ken Hutcherson is a promoter of the homosexual lifestyle and agenda, they'd laugh in your face (and then probably ask you out).



Yes, since this is a thread started by you about homosexuality, I'll ask the following:

1) What is your moral view of homosexuality? Since you acknowledge that God sets the standard for moral behavior for all, I would assume that you'd agree that it is a sin.

2)Do you believe that there is a well orchestrated agenda that is advancing the homosexual lifestyle?

3)Would it not be beneficial to recriminalize homosexuality if your answer to the above is "yes"?

4) You claim to be anti abortion; how would you propose to recriminalize abortion, while at the same time allowing other sexual sins to flourish?

The floor is yours WoO.

Hey creepy stalker :idea: go start a thread on your obsession with me and stop derailing and trolling this one. Better yet, answer the questions you ran from in res's thread.

Kthanks :wave:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Hey creepy stalker :idea: go start a thread on your obsession with me and stop derailing and trolling this one. Better yet, answer the questions you ran from in res's thread.

Kthanks :wave:

So much for

Quote:
Have I been anything less than completely open and honest about any of my views? Do you have even one example or do you have something you would like to ask me?

 

[WizardofOz]

But to legalize it would make it socially acceptable.

The case isn't watertight (ie a very similar argument is used against homosexual marriage)

Yes. Yes it is

but passes the common sense test.

I keep hearing the Supreme Court reference that darn common sense precedent.

Introducing sexual tension inside nuclear families will reasonably cause them to erode. Allowing gays to marry will have no (or negligible) effect on straight marriages or families.

:think:

 

[WizardofOz]

So much for

:doh:

So much for staying on topic, not derailing a thread and not trolling. So much for you knowing how to so much as count to one.

You have something on your mind....:idea: start a thread

Novel idea, I know

 

[WizardofOz]

1] - I'm not sure what you're asking, I only meant it as my solution to that piece specifically.

Right. You said "it's just that they want to play no part in deciding what adults want to do with each other and who they love".

Doesn't that translate to the premise of this thread? Or do you want to play a part in denying this particular taboo?

2] - Yes, why would I commit someone of a crime they are unaware they're committing? (Unless they're a danger to society)

Why should it be a crime? That's quite the point.

3] - If they're unaware of their... what's that big word Quincy used now?... (consanguinity), I was not sanguine that he had outdone me in terms of over-complication, I assure you... then they're doing nothing wrong. I see why you ask because it removed the authority position, and with that you removed my obstruction to the liberty of it.

:chuckle:

Otherwise, who are they wronging when consanguinity exists and both parties are aware of the fact?

 

[Stripe]

Thats a toughie to answer . . . .

It's tough because in order to declare what you know is wrong as wrong you have to set up an authority. Perhaps you'll try to ingratiate yourself as the authority as others have, but there is only one God.

 

[Delmar]

My answer: gross

That is the point, or at least a big part of it. People seem to believe that, in the 21st century, you can't have rules against things just because they are gross or evil.

 

[Caino]

Or mother marrying daughter?

I started a thread a while back entitled For "Gay Marriage" But Against Legalizing Polygamy?

It was an interesting thread to say the least. It seems most individuals in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage generally have no issue with legalizing multiple spouses either. The standard at least seems similar and/or they do not want to be accused of discrimination or exclusion when it comes to other types of marriages.

Incestuous relationships were brought up in that thread as well. It seemed the only objection anyone who was in favor of same-sex marriage had was the possibility of an offspring being produced that suffered from defects due to this type of relationship.

So, how about a father marrying his son? If you support same-sex marriage, why shouldn't a father be able to legally marry his son? Or, if you support same-sex marriage, why shouldn't a mother be able to marry her daughter?

Assume all parties are consenting and an adult 18 or older.

There's not a large moral or political will in secular society for father's to marry a daughter.

Men once thought it absurd that women should be given many of the freedoms that she now has.

God created homosexuals and heterosexuals, each should have the right to the benefits of marriage.

Caino

 

[Uberpod1]

That is the point, or at least a big part of it. People seem to believe that, in the 21st century, you can't have rules against things just because they are gross or evil.

This may be the crux of the problem. Gross is a matter of taste, while evil must be restricted/reflected by law. I do not understand why you equate the two.

 

[Sherman]

My answer to the opening topic--vile.

 

[WizardofOz]

This may be the crux of the problem. Gross is a matter of taste, while evil must be restricted/reflected by law. I do not understand why you equate the two.

Father and son marrying is evil in your opinion?

 

[Iakabos]

All that will be done is a continued blurring of the lines of what is good and evil. As society falls deeper into corruption, the people are the ones who will pay the price. As christians would know, sin takes a toll on you and when it is accepted and habitually practised you need to escalate the depravity. After the flesh has had it's fill the emptyness sets in.

 

[PureX]

The reason I would be against any parent/offspring coupling is that I believe it would be an abuse of the parent/offspring relationship, which continues even after the offspring passes the age of sexual consent. It would be the evidence of a kind of manipulation that is against the law for the protection of children, and should remain against the law for the protection of offspring even past childhood.

 

[WizardofOz]

The reason I would be against any parent/offspring coupling is that I believe it would be an abuse of the parent/offspring relationship, which continues even after the offspring passes the age of sexual consent. It would be the evidence of a kind of manipulation that is against the law for the protection of children, and should remain against the law for the protection of offspring even past childhood.

How about two brothers or two sisters? You would be against that, why?

I should have started with siblings rather than parent/adult child.

 

[PureX]

How about two brothers or two sisters? You would be against that, why?

The problem for heterosexual siblings coupling is that there is a physical risk for the offspring. But then there are other genetic risk factors for the offspring that we do not hold against other heterosexual couples. So I'm not sure on what basis we could reasonably outlaw sibling couples. And if they are same sex siblings, even that obstacle would be removed.

And I keep in mind, too, that such couplings would be very rare. And extremely rare, I would think, in the case of parent/offspring couplings. Especially homosexual parent/offspring couplings.

 

[Delmar]

This may be the crux of the problem. Gross is a matter of taste, while evil must be restricted/reflected by law. I do not understand why you equate the two.

It is true that some things that are gross are not evil,but I'm not sure that you could name anything evil that is not sort of gross.