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

Rana said:
My observation is that PMP got his degree in the 70's from a very evangelical ollege and has not furthered his education since. His Biblical knowledge is very behind the times.
Click to expand...

lets be honest.....since you have "observed" nothing it is purely assumption, and a poor one at that.....it is true my Juris Doctorate was in the 70s, though Valparaiso is Lutheran I don't think it qualifies as "evangelical".......my degree in theology was wrapped around the turn of the millennium and while I consider my church to be "evangelical" under the old definition, it does not qualify under the new, political understanding of the word......
 
Red Mule said:
If I happen to believe my marriage should consist of three women, two men, and a goat, (all consenting and adult and not under undue influence) just what business is it of yours? How does it change your quality of life or change what you can do with your life. Where are the conservative and libertarian ideals of personal freedom when we talk about this?
Click to expand...

A goat is a consenting adult? That would be called "bestiality", and is not simply considered immoral in a biblical sense, nor just sick and disgusting with respect to animal abuse, but inherently perverted and repugnant in every possible way.

This is what's wrong with progressives. "Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile."
 
Nice way for everyone to miss RedMule's point -

But what I REALLY don't understand is why the religious ideas of any one group of people should have any impact on our country's secular laws at all?
Click to expand...

We didn't allow Mormons to have plural wives. If muslims pushed for multiple wives based on their religion, we wouldn't allow it.

While I agree the goat can't actually consent - RedMule did specify the participants were all consenting, so focusing on that point is fairly stupid.

You don't want to marry someone of the same gender? don't do it. Your religion doesn't want to recognize same sex couples? it doesn't have to.

As with RedMule, I don't care about the biblical definition of marriage. If you all are blind to the inconsistencies and flaws of the bible and you still keep insisting that it contains your truth - that's your problem. It should not affect the laws of our country.

The rest of us who aren't brainwashed by religion - and that includes many religious people, although not all the ones on this board - can see the difference between the marriages the state recognizes and those the religion recognizes. And we also understand this is a civil rights issue, a 14th amendment equal protection issue, and actually in keeping with our country's overall values. Besides, in general most of us think it's good for society to have stable married couples who have responsibilities to each other and to their children.

In these days of high divorce rates, while there is no guarantee the marriage will last, the legal responsibilities to the children do last.

So... religious people who can't get your nose out of the highly flawed biblical texts (or torah or talmud or koran/qur'an) - so what? interpret them as you will. But don't try to set our legal system based on your interpretation of your religious text
 
PostmodernProphet said:
is the goat entitled to health care under the company plan?......
Click to expand...

AH HA! Now we have it!!
You don't care what my marriage looks like as long as they don't qualify for health care. Now, at least that is an honest and somewhat logical argument, even if I still don't agree. But, at least we would have something to discuss and might be able to come to a solution someday.

But, to dictate what I can and cannot do based on YOUR religion is just stupid. Like the DY comment about bestiality.... I was assuming an adult goat - in goat years. Why should I care if DY thinks it is wrong unless I invite him to join me, my three wives and two husbands and my goat? It's OK to abuse and milk and eventuality kill and eat my goat, but I can't make love/have sex with her/him? (I haven't yet decided what sex I want my goat.) I'll bet that if my goat could understand the question s/he would much prefer being screwed to being eaten.

But, I still come back to the question, "Why should I care what your religion says and why should you have a say in what happens in my home?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....not one which instructed people to castrate themselves....
Click to expand...

It says what I said it did.

PostmodernProphet said:
if you look throughout the OT you see examples of these "foreign" wives introducing idolatry into the land.....
Click to expand...

So? They rationalize their bigotry and that makes it okay? Racists can come up with hundreds of bullshit reasons for their bigotry.

The point is, we do not and should not follow the Bible's ideas of marriage. The concept of marriage evolves within the Bible and there is no reason it must stop evolving now. It provides no clear authority or doctrine on marriage and those who claim otherwise are either lying or ignorant.
 
itt: people arguing backwards from their preconceived notions.

here's an idea guys, how about we don't listen to what a bunch of uncivilized desert people had to say 2000-3000 years ago. just a thought.
 
Rana said:
My observation is that PMP got his degree in the 70's from a very evangelical ollege and has not furthered his education since. His Biblical knowledge is very behind the times.
Click to expand...

Hush, truth! He completely goes off the deep end, by claiming his opinion (and interpretation) of The Bible and scripture as sacrosanct, when it is anything but. I went to a parochial Episcopal Boys Choir School for 3 years, where we sang liturgical music, 6 days out of 7, studied Latin and Religion as academic courses, and attended a Catholic Christian Brothers High School, St. Mel, in Chicago for a year, and celebrated mass as an acolyte, 5 days out of 7. I dare say, that I have spent more times in a church, during those 4 years, than he has in his entire life.
 
Red Mule said:
AH HA! Now we have it!!
You don't care what my marriage looks like as long as they don't qualify for health care. Now, at least that is an honest and somewhat logical argument, even if I still don't agree. But, at least we would have something to discuss and might be able to come to a solution someday.

But, to dictate what I can and cannot do based on YOUR religion is just stupid. Like the DY comment about bestiality.... I was assuming an adult goat - in goat years. Why should I care if DY thinks it is wrong unless I invite him to join me, my three wives and two husbands and my goat? It's OK to abuse and milk and eventuality kill and eat my goat, but I can't make love/have sex with her/him? (I haven't yet decided what sex I want my goat.) I'll bet that if my goat could understand the question s/he would much prefer being screwed to being eaten.

But, I still come back to the question, "Why should I care what your religion says and why should you have a say in what happens in my home?
Click to expand...

You sound like a troll to me.

A goat cannot enter into a contract, exercise legal rights or be held liable for any responsibilities under it.
 
tekkychick said:
People really need to have their humor chips re-checked...
Click to expand...

It sounds like he is telling the tired conservative joke about how acceptance of homosexuality implies he should be able to have sex with goats. It is pretty funny that they think it is a serious argument but it is pretty similar to arguments Scalia made in Lawrence v Texas.
 
Professor Baxter said:
It sounds like he is telling the tired conservative joke about how acceptance of homosexuality implies he should be able to have sex with goats. It is pretty funny that they think it is a serious argument but it is pretty similar to arguments Scalia made in Lawrence v Texas.
Click to expand...

Ah. I know RedMule from another forum; while I hate to speak for others since he's very capable of speaking for himself, he doesn't think that way; in this case (I believe) he was engaging in some hyperbole to point out there is a difference between what a religion allows and what a secular govt does. Or what someone outside that religion does.

But typing is easy to misinterpret.
 
Professor Baxter said:
It sounds like he is telling the tired conservative joke about how acceptance of homosexuality implies he should be able to have sex with goats. It is pretty funny that they think it is a serious argument but it is pretty similar to arguments Scalia made in Lawrence v Texas.
Click to expand...

honestly if we can kill goats for food, and we can fondle their goat breasts and steal their milk from them, then we should be able to have sex with them too. Always thought that "animals can't consent" line of logic is pretty fucking stupid. You are basically sexually assaulting a goat every time you try and get goat milk.

Animals don't consent to most things we do to them. We invade their space and bodies all the time, and we kill them. Animals aren't people, they have small brains and aren't sentient.

Say yes to proposition 28 - goat sex.
 
"Fire and Blood" said:
honestly if we can kill goats for food, and we can fondle their goat breasts and steal their milk from them, then we should be able to have sex with them too. Always thought that "animals can't consent" line of logic is pretty fucking stupid. You are basically sexually assaulting a goat every time you try and get goat milk.

Animals don't consent to most things we do to them. We invade their space and bodies all the time, and we kill them. Animals aren't people, they have small brains and aren't sentient.

Say yes to proposition 28 - goat sex.
Click to expand...

But to MARRY them they need to give consent - they have to be able to sign (stomp?) the marriage license....
 
"Fire and Blood" said:
honestly if we can kill goats for food, and we can fondle their goat breasts and steal their milk from them, then we should be able to have sex with them too. Always thought that "animals can't consent" line of logic is pretty fucking stupid. You are basically sexually assaulting a goat every time you try and get goat milk.

Animals don't consent to most things we do to them. We invade their space and bodies all the time, and we kill them. Animals aren't people, they have small brains and aren't sentient.

Say yes to proposition 28 - goat sex.
Click to expand...

Milking an animal is not a sex act. By your strange reasoning a woman engages in sex/child molestation when she breast feeds her baby.

We have limits on how you may act towards children and animals because they are not fully capable of exercising their own rights or acting in their own best interests. Their incapacity also limits their rights, as you mentioned and, of course, we are not AS concerned with the interests of a goat.

Frankly, I really don't see a great need for laws against bestiality, outside of Ohio, but the laws in no way violate the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top