Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scholars'

You all know that the Bible teaches "Free will" and not "forced religion" right?

You also know the Constitution teaches "Freedom of Religion" not "forced religion" right?

So now tell me who you are to oppose the Bible and the Constitution......then I will take you seriously...


If you think you are going to hold onto a memory of a gay person and use it at the "gate" to state, "I was better than them" you are mistaken. The bible teaches free will and equality..........
 
Anti-Party said:
You all know that the Bible teaches "Free will" and not "forced religion" right?

You also know the Constitution teaches "Freedom of Religion" not "forced religion" right?

So now tell me who you are to oppose the Bible and the Constitution......then I will take you seriously...


If you think you are going to hold onto a memory of a gay person and use it at the "gate" to state, "I was better than them" you are mistaken. The bible teaches free will and equality..........
Click to expand...

if that were all that the christian (all of them) bibles taught, i would have no problem with them, it is the other parts that i object to.

as for the constitution, i agree with the interpretation by scotus resulting in the further separation of religion and the state.
 
Professor Baxter said:
I don't really care what you intend, your argument is stupid. The state can prohibit marriage to a goat or engaging in sex acts with one. You are saying that it shows how silly it is for the state to limit who you may marry, but most people would not argue that such a limit is silly.
Click to expand...

So, your reply is that you think I am "stupid?" The last refuge of a failed argument is name calling. I see you have reached that point. Anyone else?

In your reply you have failed to make a single point and failed to provide any logic or reasoning for your opinion. If you were in my class "Professor" - yes, I've taught a few - you would get a big fat ZERO on that assignment.

And I STILL fail to see any logic to the proposition that any of us have either the right or moral justification to tell anyone else who they can love or marry in a secular nation with secular laws. OK, I'll drop the goat since you cannot even see that was just a vehicle to show the absurdity of the religious right-wing position. Now, if you want to turn this into a theocracy with everyone having to live according to YOUR religious beliefs - HELLO Grand Ayatollah! NOW I RECOGNIZE YOU!
 
Re: Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious

Red Mule said:
So, your reply is that you think I am "stupid?" The last refuge of a failed argument is name calling. I see you have reached that point. Anyone else?

In your reply you have failed to make a single point and failed to provide any logic or reasoning for your opinion. If you were in my class "Professor" - yes, I've taught a few - you would get a big fat ZERO on that assignment.

And I STILL fail to see any logic to the proposition that any of us have either the right or moral justification to tell anyone else who they can love or marry in a secular nation with secular laws. OK, I'll drop the goat since you cannot even see that was just a vehicle to show the absurdity of the religious right-wing position. Now, if you want to turn this into a theocracy with everyone having to live according to YOUR religious beliefs - HELLO Grand Ayatollah! NOW I RECOGNIZE YOU!
Click to expand...

I said your argument was stupid which is a perfectly valid claim. I supported the assertion as well. You failed to respond to my point. I will restate it...

It does not demonstrate the absurdity of the right wing argument because few think it absurd to deny others the right to marry a goat or have sex with it.

Unnecessary mistreatment of an animal offends most due to a reasonable sense of empathy. It's not a religious view or argument and so it is not really related to the right wing argument on homosexuality.

No, I don't want to turn this into a theocracy. I don't hold any religious beliefs.
 
Professor Baxter said:
I said your argument was stupid which is a perfectly valid claim. I supported the assertion as well. You failed to respond to my point. I will restate it...

It does not demonstrate the absurdity of the right wing argument because few think it absurd to deny others the right to marry a goat or have sex with it.

Unnecessary mistreatment of an animal offends most due to a reasonable sense of empathy. It's not a religious view or argument and so it is not really related to the right wing argument on homosexuality.

No, I don't want to turn this into a theocracy. I don't hold any religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


But you are still making ASSUMPTIONS on what most people think. Where is your study and where are your numbers?
I've been willing to drop the goat (maybe an annulment?) but you keep bringing it up. Cruelty to animals? I rather suspect that if the goat enjoyed it, it's not cruelty. Where and how do you think they get the bull semen to impregnate all those dairy cows? Cruelty, perverted sex? After all, are we sure it's a cowGIRL that jacked off the bull?

My POINT is that who (or what, when it really comes down to it) that I marry is just none of your damned business, whatever your reasons. If you want to argue about who (or what) should benefit from my insurance, my investments, my death, etc... go right ahead. THAT is a reasonable thing to argue about because it could impact other people. It's not MY fault that laws are written that reward people for being married and (by extension) limit or punish others that legally cannot. The problem is not the marriage - it's the laws and regulations tied to it.

Why not just drop the whole fiction that two married people are now one person? They should be able to write up their own partnership agreements. If some other organization is involved, just treat everyone as an individual or something like a business partner. Maybe people should just incorporate??? But, get it out of the church and get other people out of our bedrooms.
 
Red Mule said:
But you are still making ASSUMPTIONS on what most people think. Where is your study and where are your numbers?
I've been willing to drop the goat (maybe an annulment?) but you keep bringing it up. Cruelty to animals? I rather suspect that if the goat enjoyed it, it's not cruelty. Where and how do you think they get the bull semen to impregnate all those dairy cows? Cruelty, perverted sex? After all, are we sure it's a cowGIRL that jacked off the bull?

My POINT is that who (or what, when it really comes down to it) that I marry is just none of your damned business, whatever your reasons. If you want to argue about who (or what) should benefit from my insurance, my investments, my death, etc... go right ahead. THAT is a reasonable thing to argue about because it could impact other people. It's not MY fault that laws are written that reward people for being married and (by extension) limit or punish others that legally cannot. The problem is not the marriage - it's the laws and regulations tied to it.

Why not just drop the whole fiction that two married people are now one person? They should be able to write up their own partnership agreements. If some other organization is involved, just treat everyone as an individual or something like a business partner. Maybe people should just incorporate??? But, get it out of the church and get other people out of our bedrooms.
Click to expand...


You contend that most people would not oppose bestiality, animal abuse or marrying a goat? Well then, start a political movement to legalize it and prove your support. Most here would recommend you start in Ohio.

We have no way of telling if your goat enjoys it and even if it did the great gulf one assumes to exist in your intellectual capacities and legal choices are so extensive that the relationship would remain always unequal and, possibly, coercive. Frankly, you'd have a better argument for being allowed to marry a child, who we assume, at some point, will be equal, but you don't have an argument for that either.

Collection of bull semen is not done for the sexual gratification of the humans involved. The way in which all species of animals gather food is through some use of force against other species. We are not different. But we certainly could pass laws regulating collection of bull semen as we have against the slaughter of cattle. You have no real right to collect bull semen.

You seem to be demanding that I present some philosophical point that answers perfectly and leaves no gray areas or questions. That's a foolish request. Philosophical principles can only provide a guide. They won't answer every question but that does not mean they are useless. I am pretty content with our method of dealing with the tough issues, e.g., case law and democratic processes.

Homosexuality is not a tough case. The two participants are, typically, fully equal and able to consent or not. The state should not be involved and the only interests of those attempting to prevent the behavior is to discriminate in a way that violates the 14th amendment rights of the targets.

The church has nothing, necessarily, to do with the legal recognition of marriage now. The notion that two people are one is for LEGAL purposes only and even then it's not absolute.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....is it really that hard to find?....
Matthew 19
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Click to expand...
. Where here does it say gays can't marry?
 
Professor Baxter said:
You contend that most people would not oppose bestiality, animal abuse or marrying a goat? Well then, start a political movement to legalize it and prove your support. Most here would recommend you start in Ohio.

We have no way of telling if your goat enjoys it and even if it did the great gulf one assumes to exist in your intellectual capacities and legal choices are so extensive that the relationship would remain always unequal and, possibly, coercive. Frankly, you'd have a better argument for being allowed to marry a child, who we assume, at some point, will be equal, but you don't have an argument for that either.

Collection of bull semen is not done for the sexual gratification of the humans involved. The way in which all species of animals gather food is through some use of force against other species. We are not different. But we certainly could pass laws regulating collection of bull semen as we have against the slaughter of cattle. You have no real right to collect bull semen.

You seem to be demanding that I present some philosophical point that answers perfectly and leaves no gray areas or questions. That's a foolish request. Philosophical principles can only provide a guide. They won't answer every question but that does not mean they are useless. I am pretty content with our method of dealing with the tough issues, e.g., case law and democratic processes.

Homosexuality is not a tough case. The two participants are, typically, fully equal and able to consent or not. The state should not be involved and the only interests of those attempting to prevent the behavior is to discriminate in a way that violates the 14th amendment rights of the targets.

The church has nothing, necessarily, to do with the legal recognition of marriage now. The notion that two people are one is for LEGAL purposes only and even then it's not absolute.
Click to expand...

GOATS - GOATS - GOATS! Since you like riding that to the virtual exclusion of all else, I thought I'd give you an extra dose. You continue to make assumptions on what people think that you can't prove, or how my mythical goat might feel which you can't prove, or any other source or study other than your personal opinion. Would it make you feel better if I said a DUCK or a MECHANICAL DEVICE WITH A BRAIN? My point, which you keep trying to slither around, is it's none of your business who or what I have sex with or marry unless you can show abuse - a different proposition entirely.

And I not ASKING you anything. I am making a STATEMENT. If you disagree, fine. If you think you have provable facts (not just your personal opinions) to invalidate my statement, bring out your sources. I can deal with that. I don't have to prove diddly because it's not me wanting to intrude in YOUR life. I also have no right - baring evidence of abuse - to tell you how to manage your sexual or marital life. If I thought I did, I'd better be showing up with proof or studies or SOMETHING besides an opinion.

All that aside, when you make a statement like, "Homosexuality is not a tough case. The two participants are, typically, fully equal and able to consent or not. The state should not be involved" - I can't figure out why you continue to argue. You and I both "seem" to agree on that much. Unless you are a total idiot, I assume you would know I don't really intend to marry my goat. Was it the 2 men and 3 women that bothered you? Aren't they also "fully equal and able to consent"?

Putting the fixation you have on my goat story aside, what's your beef?

PS, The 14th amendment had a few pretty big human rights holes in it. Like excluding Indians and women that I'm glad we sort of cleaned up later on.
 
Red Mule said:
GOATS - GOATS - GOATS! Since you like riding that to the virtual exclusion of all else, I thought I'd give you an extra dose. You continue to make assumptions on what people think that you can't prove, or how my mythical goat might feel which you can't prove, or any other source or study other than your personal opinion. Would it make you feel better if I said a DUCK or a MECHANICAL DEVICE WITH A BRAIN? My point, which you keep trying to slither around, is it's none of your business who or what I have sex with or marry unless you can show abuse - a different proposition entirely.

And I not ASKING you anything. I am making a STATEMENT. If you disagree, fine. If you think you have provable facts (not just your personal opinions) to invalidate my statement, bring out your sources. I can deal with that. I don't have to prove diddly because it's not me wanting to intrude in YOUR life. I also have no right - baring evidence of abuse - to tell you how to manage your sexual or marital life. If I thought I did, I'd better be showing up with proof or studies or SOMETHING besides an opinion.

All that aside, when you make a statement like, "Homosexuality is not a tough case. The two participants are, typically, fully equal and able to consent or not. The state should not be involved" - I can't figure out why you continue to argue. You and I both "seem" to agree on that much. Unless you are a total idiot, I assume you would know I don't really intend to marry my goat. Was it the 2 men and 3 women that bothered you? Aren't they also "fully equal and able to consent"?

Putting the fixation you have on my goat story aside, what's your beef?

PS, The 14th amendment had a few pretty big human rights holes in it. Like excluding Indians and women that I'm glad we sort of cleaned up later on.
Click to expand...

I think my assumptions about what most believe with regards to bestiality, animal abuse and marriage to a goat are rather modest. I am not going to bother supplying proof of that other than the laws prohibiting them and the lack of any apparent opposition to them. But, it does not really matter. If it is not true then you can prove that easily and I might modify my position on at least two of them.

No, I don't think you really intend to marry a goat. I think you are either a troll or you do not get that your argument sucks. It's as if you are arguing that we should legalize marijuana because kids should be free to smoke meth. The reason I keep bringing up gay marriage is because your argument implies that we should allow it because we should allow you to marry a goat. I am pointing out that while I agree with your conclusion your premise is stupid.

I made no assumptions about what your goat might feel. That was you. I indicated that it would be impossible for us to discern its consent.

No, I am sorry, but the state does have an interest in protecting the rights of those without a capacity to consent or register their dissent prior to proof of abuse. One assumes a fully functioning adult is capable of speaking up if their rights are being abused. The state relies on that assumption and therefore will not intervene if a possible victim does not ask them to do so unless there is quite a bit of proof. But that is not true for children or the mentally handicapped and the state can intervene on their behalf without them asking.

I see no reason why some basic protections cannot be extended to animals. But they should never be recognized as possessing rights and all protections should be at the whim of democratic majority.

Regardless of your nearly successful attempts to disprove it here it is a well known fact that you, as a human, are far more intelligent than a goat. You also possess numerous rights and access to legal protections. That's the only fact I need to argue that a relationship between you and a goat is exploitative.
 
It's really simple actually,

Matthew 19:5-6

New King James Version (NKJV)

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[a] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
 
patriot66 said:
It's really simple actually,

Matthew 19:5-6

New King James Version (NKJV)

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[a] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Click to expand...

sounds pretty squishy. What happens to the extra arms and legs? and the 2nd appendix?

Or maybe it's like "Goober" - where peanut butter and jelly were swirled in the same jar. Still pretty gross.

Taken literally, Matthew is really gross.
 
What if the man never met his father. Can he no longer get married? Or in that case, is the marriage to a woman not required?

I see where that passage allows for hetrosexual marriage I simply do not see where it requires it.

Jesus did not have a father (not a biological one), so would he have been allowed to have a homosexual marriage, because he could not leave his parents, plural!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top