Papacy applauds LGBT progress

[tulc]

Hey Tulc,

Hey!

I see you are still supporting your arguments with disjunctional fallacies. I guess some things never change.

Well, I try not to disappoint.

Nice seeing you

It's nice to be seen.
tulc(is sipping some excellent coffee)

 

[Yarddog]

Sorry. Typing error on my part. I meant to say that it was practiced among the Jews.

That is what I thought.

But Paul wasn't addressing Gentiles in Africa or the Middle East. He was addressing those in Asia Minor and Italy where it was not practiced.

Why wasn't it practiced in Asia Minor? The Romans controlled the area, for the most part but there were Jews in Macedonia, Rome, Asia Minor, etc... When Paul addressed a Church in a city, he was aware that there were Christians from several cultures in those cities and that his letters were passed around to surrounding cities.

Never? Now you are the one who is saying things that just are not true.

No, the early Christian Church never practiced sola scriptura.

So it was allowable in ancient scripture? You now admit that the definition of marriage DID change.

The definition? The OT allowed for men to have multiple wives. It allowed men to divorce their wives. I wouldn't call it a definition though. Every culture can apply their terms to what a marriage is.

And, again, Paul is addressing Gentiles who did not practice polygamy

Paul is addressing Christians in an area which contained people from many cultures including Jews. Whenever Paul went into a community he first sought out the synagogues and then went to the Gentiles.

But Jesus was addressing divorce, not polygamy.

Jesus is also addressing marriage and in his words we can find clues regarding what a marriage was for him. What we cannot find is Jesus or any disciple speaking of a male followers with many wives.

And, again, Paul is addressing people who did not practice polygamy.

And again, you don't know what cultures may have been present. Polygamy was practiced in ancient Greece until the Roman Empire outlawed it.

Please shwo me anything in the New Testament that specifically disallows polygamy. If it is there, as you claim, it shouldn't be hard to locate it.

Where did I claim that it was?

 

[judechild]

Well, I try not to disappoint.

That can't possibly be true, since you disappointed me by not answering my two questions, which you'll have to do if you want to convince me that - as you say - my opposition to gay marriage is only a matter of something I like or don't like. You remember the questions?

1) Under the re-definition, how is a non-sexual friendship between two adults (or even two children, since sex isn't necessary in marriage under the redefinition), ontologically different than a married couple (either homo or heterosexual)?
2) If marriage is not related to sexuality (of any type) under the re-definition, then how does marriage expanded to two men or women of the same sex constitute raising their sexuality from 2nd-class status?

Here, I'll even throw in a third question:

3) Since that the two be adults, and that they be in love, are the only two criteria you've insisted on, it follows that the state must be competent to define love. How would you define love in the law?

 

[Shocker]

More folly from the papacy..

Christ saves..

 

[tulc]

That can't possibly be true, since you disappointed me by not answering my two questions, which you'll have to do if you want to convince me that - as you say - my opposition to gay marriage is only a matter of something I like or don't like. You remember the questions?

1) Under the re-definition, how is a non-sexual friendship between two adults (or even two children, since sex isn't necessary in marriage under the redefinition), ontologically different than a married couple (either homo or heterosexual)?

Good question, you should start a thread and see if I join it.

2) If marriage is not related to sexuality (of any type) under the re-definition, then how does marriage expanded to two men or women of the same sex constitute raising their sexuality from 2nd-class status?

You seem really worried about sex and the law. You should start a second thread about that as well.

Here, I'll even throw in a third question:

may as well.

3) Since that the two be adults, and that they be in love, are the only two criteria you've insisted on, it follows that the state must be competent to define love. How would you define love in the law?

Sure, if two adults want to get married that's as much "in love" as the State needs to know.
tulc(will be interested in seeing your threads)

 

[judechild]

Good question, you should start a thread and see if I join it.

I'm sorry, but you seem to have no curiosity to speak of, so I really doubt you'd be any more interesting on a different thread.

You seem really worried about sex and the law. You should start a second thread about that as well.

I'm worried about the law being based on objective and real things, not your biases - yes, what you are proposing is completely and solely based on your own biases. If you want to say "any two people can be married" than you need to have a rational reason for limiting the definition to two, rather than three or four, and you likewise need to have a reason why - if you separate marriage from sexuality, what it is that makes a marriage different from a non-sexual relationship. If you can't answer those, then you're proposing something completely irrational; you're asking the state to subsidize something that is really nothing (but the state has no interest in subsidizing nothing).

Sure, if two adults want to get married that's as much "in love" as the State needs to know.

Then defend your definition, and tell me why it has to be limited to two, or to adults (since sex is not involved in the re-definition, there's no problem with sexual mores).

 

[Yarddog]

More folly from the papacy..

Christ saves..

No, there's no fallacy.

 

[tulc]

I'm sorry, but you seem to have no curiosity to speak of, so I really doubt you'd be any more interesting on a different thread.

...there's a rule that says I have to be interesting to you or curious on CF? Could you post where that can be found? I'd like to see it.

I'm worried about the law being based on objective and real things, not your biases - yes, what you are proposing is completely and solely based on your own biases. If you want to say "any two people can be married" than you need to have a rational reason for limiting the definition to two, rather than three or four, and you likewise need to have a reason why - if you separate marriage from sexuality, what it is that makes a marriage different from a non-sexual relationship. If you can't answer those, then you're proposing something completely irrational; you're asking the state to subsidize something that is really nothing (but the state has no interest in subsidizing nothing).

that sounds like something you sould also discuss on your thread.

Then defend your definition,

Ok, if you are expected as a citizen to pay taxes here you should have the same rights as everyone else. (you can marry the person you love so should they) to me? that seems pretty simple.

and tell me why it has to be limited to two, or to adults (since sex is not involved in the re-definition, there's no problem with sexual mores).

all very interesting topics but not really what this thread is about.
tulc(notices you seem to be worried about sex again)

 

[judechild]

...there's a rule that says I have to be interesting to you or curious on CF? Could you post where that can be found? I'd like to see it.

There is a rule of human nature that says that a prospect has to interest the person doing the action, and the prospect of having another thread where you've desired not to engage your brain isn't interesting me.

that sounds like something you sould also discuss on your thread.

Evasion doesn't help your position - but I should probably thank you, since your absolutely pathetic response two posts ago proved my point to at least one other person that the proponents of the re-definition generally can't think critically on the subject.

When the majority agrees with you, you can afford not to think, but I couldn't live like that.

Ok, if you are expected as a citizen to pay taxes here you should have the same rights as everyone else. (you can marry the person you love so should they) to me? that seems pretty simple.

There are two glaring problems with this (of course, I expect you to continue to evade so as to avoid having to think rationally). The first problem is that - despite your whining - there is no difference in rights between Nebraska and Iowa, only a difference in definition. In Iowa, any man (of sound mind) can be married to a man or a woman - whether that man is homosexual or heterosexual; in Nebraska, any man can be married to a woman - whether he is homosexual or heterosexual. Likewise, the definition for when a person can get a driver's permit is different in both states: 14 for Iowa, 16 for Nebraska; but the 14-year-old in Nebraska is not being denied his rights.

The second problem is with whast you are calling love. When I asked you to define ''love'' in the law, you said ''if two adults want to get married'' then that's all the state needs. But that doesn't say anything because, in another response, you claimed that being in love is necessary for marriage to be recognized; now you're saying that to ask to be married is all the ''love'' that is required. That's circular; all that you've said is ''people who ask to be married should be married.'' In other words, ''love'' is a meaningless word, and your definition doesn't need or even really use it. Then, you apply irrational and biased limitations on that definition. You're effectively saying, ''all people who ask to be married should be married, except for three or more people, or children's, or a human and a company/legal firm." When I challenged you to justify this exclusion, you say ''make a new thread.'' Anyone who evades questions like that appears to be afraid of rational thought on the subject, and unable to actually justify the definition. The law must be based on rational and defencable principles, because, when the law is challenged, it won't be able to say ''just make a new thread.''

all very interesting topics but not really what this thread is about.
tulc(notices you seem to be worried about sex again)

sexuality is a part of the definition of marriage, so of course I bring it up. This is really very silly of you; trying to avoid thinking about your irrational biases about what marriage should be, and trying to put the problem on me. It's your problem, not mine. You can't even defend the most basic parts of your definition.

But if you want another thread, then I challenge you to a formal debate on the subject. If you don't take it, fine, I don't much care since I'm quite confident you'll only evade some more.

 

[janwoG]

The homosexual agenda is to compel society that their lifestyle as much as normal as heterosexuality. Then they can promote recruitment in schools by their propaganda. Some atheistic liberals support them in order to undermine Christianity.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

The homosexual agenda is to compel society that their lifestyle as much as normal as heterosexuality. Then they can promote recruitment in schools by their propaganda. Some atheistic liberals support them in order to undermine Christianity.

Which fails to explain the large number of Christians that support legal rights of homosexuals.

Also, no. Most homosexuals don't really care if society thinks they are normal, they only want the same rights legally, as the rest of their peers. And they certainly don't need to "recruit" anyone, in schools or not.

 

[tulc]

There is a rule of human nature that says that a prospect has to interest the person doing the action, and the prospect of having another thread where you've desired not to engage your brain isn't interesting me.

Evasion doesn't help your position - but I should probably thank you, since your absolutely pathetic response two posts ago proved my point to at least one other person that the proponents of the re-definition generally can't think critically on the subject.

When the majority agrees with you, you can afford not to think, but I couldn't live like that.


There are two glaring problems with this (of course, I expect you to continue to evade so as to avoid having to think rationally). The first problem is that - despite your whining - there is no difference in rights between Nebraska and Iowa, only a difference in definition. In Iowa, any man (of sound mind) can be married to a man or a woman - whether that man is homosexual or heterosexual; in Nebraska, any man can be married to a woman - whether he is homosexual or heterosexual. Likewise, the definition for when a person can get a driver's permit is different in both states: 14 for Iowa, 16 for Nebraska; but the 14-year-old in Nebraska is not being denied his rights.


The second problem is with whast you are calling love. When I asked you to define ''love'' in the law, you said ''if two adults want to get married'' then that's all the state needs. But that doesn't say anything because, in another response, you claimed that being in love is necessary for marriage to be recognized; now you're saying that to ask to be married is all the ''love'' that is required. That's circular; all that you've said is ''people who ask to be married should be married.'' In other words, ''love'' is a meaningless word, and your definition doesn't need or even really use it. Then, you apply irrational and biased limitations on that definition. You're effectively saying, ''all people who ask to be married should be married, except for three or more people, or children's, or a human and a company/legal firm." When I challenged you to justify this exclusion, you say ''make a new thread.'' Anyone who evades questions like that appears to be afraid of rational thought on the subject, and unable to actually justify the definition. The law must be based on rational and defencable principles, because, when the law is challenged, it won't be able to say ''just make a new thread.''




sexuality is a part of the definition of marriage, so of course I bring it up. This is really very silly of you; trying to avoid thinking about your irrational biases about what marriage should be, and trying to put the problem on me. It's your problem, not mine. You can't even defend the most basic parts of your definition.

But if you want another thread, then I challenge you to a formal debate on the subject. If you don't take it, fine, I don't much care since I'm quite confident you'll only evade some more.

...so...I'll take this to mean you're not starting other threads to discuss what you want to discuss?
tulc(just trying to be clear)

 

[judechild]

I'm perfectly willing, but you know that a thread started on those topics is against the forum rules, except for the possibility that we could set up a formal debate. So, do you want the thread, or not? I don't much care one way or the other, since I doubt you'd have anything substantive in that thread either, but that's the offer.

 

[bitznbitez]

Why are Seventh Day Adventists so obsessed with the RCC?

Who cares if the Papacy is becoming more liberal, it doesnt effect me.

As a born and raised SDA [ before I jumped ship ] I can answer that.

The reason they are very focused on RCC and the Pope is because in their end time teachings the RCC will eventually unite what they call "apostate christianity" [essentially the Sunday keeping churches ] and the various non Christian faiths with the world government. This world wide group will then turn its focus on attacking the SDAs and particularly their observance of Saturday as the Sabbath. Thus they are very much fascinated with what the RCC is up to.

There has been some recent variance on that but for the longest time that was the teaching.

 

[J.B.]

Which fails to explain the large number of Christians that support legal rights of homosexuals.

Also, no. Most homosexuals don't really care if society thinks they are normal, they only want the same rights legally, as the rest of their peers. And they certainly don't need to "recruit" anyone, in schools or not.

The large number of Christians you write about, have been persuaded by the prevalence of the pro-homosexuality agenda itself to accept it. People have increasingly accepted it since the last decade, and even prior, and far more people than previously. Many call it progress, but it is also failure on the part of Christians to uphold the biblical notion that homosexuality is sinful, and abominable to God. The homosexual agenda employs social conditioning tactics in order to get more and more people convinced into believing that homosexuality is OK, and even compatible with Christianity. It is not, and it is in sharp contradiction to the scriptures. A Christian must choose God and his word over what their peers or the media and spokesmen for that movement tell them is acceptable. They are trying to make a sin into something that is accepted, and many, if not most, do try to convince people that they may be homosexuals or bisexuals (recruitment, if rarely ever mentioned in name).

If this information in the opening post is correct, the Roman Catholic Church is making a grave mistake, disregarding the scriptures and traditional beliefs of Christianity. Homosexuality support may be popular now, as they are seen by progressive, left wing people as victims and oppressed, but sins should rightfully be shunned, which if done properly does not cause harm, but informs others of what is right and wrong.

 

[David Brider]

...many, if not most, do try to convince people that they may be homosexuals or bisexuals (recruitment, if rarely ever mentioned in name).

Sexual orientation doesn't work like that.

If someone is attracted exclusively to people of the opposite sex to themselves, they're heterosexual.

If someone is attracted exclusively to people of the same sex as themselves, they're homosexual.

If someone is attracted to people of both sexes, they're bisexual.

Nobody has to "convince" people that they're heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual*. They either are, or they aren't. You can't change who a person is attracted to by "convincing" them. There is no "recruitment" involved.






*Yes, there are other possibilities (pansexuality and asexuality, for a start; there may be others, but those are the two obvious ones), but I'm keeping it simple.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Sexual orientation doesn't work like that.

If someone is attracted exclusively to people of the opposite sex to themselves, they're heterosexual.

If someone is attracted exclusively to people of the same sex as themselves, they're homosexual.

If someone is attracted to people of both sexes, they're bisexual.

Nobody has to "convince" people that they're heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual*. They either are, or they aren't. You can't change who a person is attracted to by "convincing" them. There is no "recruitment" involved.






*Yes, there are other possibilities (pansexuality and asexuality, for a start; there may be others, but those are the two obvious ones), but I'm keeping it simple.

You can't convince a person who is attracted to guys to not be attracted to guys anymore than you can convince a guy who likes blonde haired blue eyed women to like brunettes. He will always like blonde haired blue eyed women even if he marries a brunette.

 

[Scipio]

...what's the purpose of this thread again?

 

[Gunny]

A Christian must choose God and his word over what their peers or the media and spokesmen for that movement tell them is acceptable.

Amen and Amen.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter".

Isaiah 5:20
NIV

 

[tulc]

Amen and Amen.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter".

Isaiah 5:20
NIV

Hey Gunny!
tulc(long time no see!)