Not to be obtuse, but this standard could be used to "prove" that God has declared rape to be "right". It is consistent with the "laws of biology" and it creates children.

My point is only that you probably need to be more specific with your heuristic here.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Not to spoil the post but it is obtuse because rape is immoral as well so your point it moot..So that you can be obtuse?

__________________
United We Stand.

See below:

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

I actually already addressed this in one of my responses to another person:

God has declared that rape and incest are also wrong.

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

I'm not interested in your opinion of my post.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Fair enough. But, my main issue was with your afterthought of using "2" and "3" to prove "1". If "2" and "3" prove that God takes issue with homosexuality then they could also be used to prove that God is okay with rape. If you then disprove the latter by saying "God stated that rape is wrong", you're begging the question by using God's opinions in your proof of God's opinions.

It's a fine point, to be sure. And, believe me, I do understand what you're saying. I just think that you ought to avoid using biology to "prove" God's will and stick with, say, interpretation of scripture, which is at least logically consistent.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Please promise us all that you guys won't get into another "mathematical equations" argument...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

1. False. What heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are doing does not need a license. Hence, no one is asking for such a license.
2. True. Government is the agent of the public. The entire public, including heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals.
3. What other things?

Exactly. A legal recognition of a partnership and therefore the rights and privileges that come with such a legal status (not in order to do but to be .. mega difference).

No, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike ask for the rights and privileges that are granted by the governmental sanctioning of relationships. No one is asking for a license for "what they are doing". That part needs no license from government. The actions you seem to focus on - i.e. "what they are doing" - may need a detachment from parental control and/or some kind of mental permission from religious doctrines but none of those things are the business of government. Nor aka. the public, if you want.

Do what? According to which morals? And who's morals?

Nope. At that time you've already had your say whether or not government should create the institution, e.g. sanction of a relationship.

I didn't say anyone is forcing anything. You're arguing a stance, I hope, not forcing (even if you could).

Who on earth but you would equal marriage with a protection of a lifestyle, action or feeling?

Heterosexuals engage in quite weird lifestyles, at least from my point of view, and yet they have no problems getting married.

Marriage is a governmental sanction of a relationship. That means it provides a legal status with certain rights and privileges. No one, not even government, signs up as a party in such a contractual agreement without benefitting from it. So what is the benefit, you think? Do you think government has any interest in having people copulate after some governmental recipe?? That the partners are supposed love each other for the benefit of government all 3,600 seconds of a day, 24/7? That they reproduce and provide the state with new citizens á la communistic social engineering?

I'll tell you: None of the above. If any of these things were actual demands and not merely your indoctrinated moral castles in Spain, there would be no such thing as marriage. I think you'll have a hard time telling Americans not to do 69's anymore, not to live out their spanking fantasies, not to have their individual differences and occasionally yell at each other and certainly to sign a contract with the government to deliver X number of children before the age of 40.

No sir. In return for enjoying the rights and privileges of marriage, the married couple makes a commitment to play by the rules in an easy to handle unit defined on the very terms of society itself. It's much simpler to have these units in order to provide any public administration and regulate legal matters from birth, through education, through working life, through senior years and until and beyond death than to administer and deal with the legal matters of individuals.

Although this link is a lesbian/gay site, it was the quickest hit I got of a comprehensive list of rights and privileges that marriage provides (I'm sure there are other similar lists on .gov sites if you don't like this one). Try go through the list and see which privileges you suspect would exist for the sole purpose of easing an administrative burden. You might be surprised.

No, I honestly don't know. I do know, though, that boys have penises and girls have vaginas. But what are the "laws" of biology that you want to discuss regarding this fact of life? Now I'm just tossing a possible name of such a law into the air but is there such a thing as the Law of Reproduction, you think? And if you think there is, are you quite sure you don't confuse it with some man-made laws? Perhaps some morally based ones even?

Yes, we're are talking about unions that can produce children whether or not those children are wanted. So, that includes all heterosexual unions that can produce a child. As long as a naturally occurring act can blend the gametes needed for a conception. That's the natural state, you say. Rape, incest, making love. Doesn't matter. It blends the heterosexual gamets and potentially produce a child. Simple.

I'm curious, though, where does that leave heterosexual couples that either cannot or will not blend the gametes needed for conception. Are they somehow in an unnatural state and therefore excluded from a governmental sanction of their relationship? And if not, why?

I'm just curious, but am wondering if the same people who voted in favour of criminalising homosexuality also believe that hate crimes shouldn't be criminalised?

"The Secularists who only want their point of view heard." would make a good thread title.

__________________
United We Stand.

Well, I voted "no", but I'm curious by what you meant.

I was never comfortable with the notion that a "hate crime" should be treated as a special class of crime. If you beat the snot out of a white guy because you really hate white guys, I don't see how that should be any different than if you beat the snot out of a white guy because you're just a mean, angry man. Either way, you should face the penalty, but basing punishment on someone's feelings doesn't sit well with me. And then there's the notion of trying to prove "hatred".

Anyway, I was curious about the connection to homosexuality.

I was curious as to the long-held discussion on this Forum, where homosexuality has been held up by some for a few years on here now, as being the central tenet behind every evil thing in the world ... and I was curious if they believed that it was a crime, that they would also have no problems with someone having the snot belted out of them for being gay ... that was all.

I believe that "certain" people here would completely support kicking the living shit out of a gay man for no other reason than he's a gay man. In fact, I believe that these "certain" people would support rewarding such behavior.

That said, the worst ass-whuppin' I ever saw someone take was a straight guy who decided to fuck with a gay guy in a nightclub I tended bar at. The gay guy beat the ever-livin' snot out of the straight guy...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

one thing scaring alot of straight men is 'being hit on'. this could easily create a bad situation. this is where I say people need to learn to respect others. it is not nice to 'hit on' someone just like its not nice to physically hit the one who 'hit on' you. it all boils down to: respect limits, if someone is not gay - respect it and moveon. you know?

I agree with you Beer. But it might also be prudent for straight men who don't like to be "hit on", to think about their actions in relation to women then. Maybe sometimes the women don't like being hit on by men either? Just a thought.....