Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Agymnum]

The difference is that laws are considered good or bad on an objective, secular scale. Religious guidance is inherently subjective since it's nonsecular and differs between persons of different beliefs or - in my case - of lack of belief.



I always thought Satan was the good guy, seeing as he punished the evildoers.

So Hasatan is the Jewish version of Satan? If so, now his position as Lord of Hell suddenly makes sense as he's doing God's will to punish the evildoers.

Jews don't believe in Hell. Hasatan is "the opposer." His purpose is to test humans by placing obstacles in their way. So for instance when he attempts to test Job, he is actually following what he is supposed to do. There was never any rebellion. If you read the torah, you will notice that there is ver little mention of an afterlife, rather punishment occurs in this life, either through plagues or famine or the such.

Suddenly God seems less like a dick and more like someone who's just really bored with creation (thus he does testing, much like GLaDOS for kicks).

I mean, Christians are under the belief that hell exists for eternal punishment after life. And here I went thinking life was punishment enough.

[Condunum]

So all those people who pray to Satan are really just praying to God via proxy?

So Satanism is really just Judaism but with a more hip deity? I knew it!

No, they're worshiping an angel... it would be the same if I were a Gabrialist... or an Michaelist... or a Raphaelist.

Being a Gabrialist sounds cool.

I'm gonna be that.

[Neutraligon]

So all those people who pray to Satan are really just praying to God via proxy?

So Satanism is really just Judaism but with a more hip deity? I knew it!

No, they're worshiping an angel... it would be the same if I were a Gabrialist... or an Michaelist... or a Raphaelist.

Yep, they are in essence worshiping a servant.

[Agymnum]

No, they're worshiping an angel... it would be the same if I were a Gabrialist... or an Michaelist... or a Raphaelist.

Yep, they are in essence worshiping a servant.

Is that bad? It's technically not idolatry since the servant really exists according to theology.

[Menassa]

No, they're worshiping an angel... it would be the same if I were a Gabrialist... or an Michaelist... or a Raphaelist.

Yep, they are in essence worshiping a servant.

Why worship a servant when you can worship the Master?

Jews don't believe in Hell. Hasatan is "the opposer." His purpose is to test humans by placing obstacles in their way. So for instance when he attempts to test Job, he is actually following what he is supposed to do. There was never any rebellion. If you read the torah, you will notice that there is ver little mention of an afterlife, rather punishment occurs in this life, either through plagues or famine or the such.

Suddenly God seems less like a dick and more like someone who's just really bored with creation (thus he does testing, much like GLaDOS for kicks).

I mean, Christians are under the belief that hell exists for eternal punishment after life. And here I went thinking life was punishment enough.

Without Evil... without vice... there can be no virtue.

Satan is a blessing.

[Slovenya]

Same-sex marriage would simply confer upon the same-sex couple the same legal rights and responsibilities that a heterosexual couple legally enjoys now. It does not require your mosque or someone's church to officiate at such weddings. It does not require you to marry someone of the same gender. It simply confers the same rights (over 1,000 of them under federal law) and the same responsibilities as experienced in a heterosexual marriage. How is that bad or "wrong"?

If you believe in what the bible or Quran say then you will see its bad. You are right in the sense that it doesn't correspond to people who dont believe in these books, but like I said, i used it as a platform for not crossing the lines of what humans should do. So even if they do marry they can't make children, and homosexuality actually brings more diseases

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pat-robertson-gay-marriage-only-brings-disease-and-suffering-video/politics/2012/05/15/39622

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

[Menassa]

Yep, they are in essence worshiping a servant.

Is that bad? It's technically not idolatry since the servant really exists according to theology.

So did Nimrod... and Nebuchadnezzar.

[Agymnum]

Is that bad? It's technically not idolatry since the servant really exists according to theology.

So did Nimrod... and Nebuchadnezzar.

Speaking of which, is Nimrod rightly accused of rebelling against God with the Tower of Babel? I've never heard the actual verse where he commands his followers to build it.

[Neutraligon]

Jews don't believe in Hell. Hasatan is "the opposer." His purpose is to test humans by placing obstacles in their way. So for instance when he attempts to test Job, he is actually following what he is supposed to do. There was never any rebellion. If you read the torah, you will notice that there is ver little mention of an afterlife, rather punishment occurs in this life, either through plagues or famine or the such.

Suddenly God seems less like a dick and more like someone who's just really bored with creation (thus he does testing, much like GLaDOS for kicks).

I mean, Christians are under the belief that hell exists for eternal punishment after life. And here I went thinking life was punishment enough.

Yeah, there are some rather interesting beliefs about the afterlife in Judaism. The belief in sheol for one, which is essentially a storage cupboard for all souls, whether good or bad. There are some beliefs that there is a place where souls go to remove their sins, at which point they rise to heaven, but the time period spent in such a place is normally very short (I think it was somewhere around a year).

Anyway, I do not see the slippery slope as reasonable argument. I also have no issue with homosexuals being allowed to marry, since religious organizations will not be forced to perform a ceremony they do not agree with.

[RainBear]

Slovenya, then you support Lesbianism as it does not bring about as many diseases as heterosexuality does?

Also, as for procreation, ... There are couples who are incapable of bearing children or who do not wish to bear children. Should their marriages by voided because of the lack of children?

quote="Slovenya";p="14092041"]

Same-sex marriage would simply confer upon the same-sex couple the same legal rights and responsibilities that a heterosexual couple legally enjoys now. It does not require your mosque or someone's church to officiate at such weddings. It does not require you to marry someone of the same gender. It simply confers the same rights (over 1,000 of them under federal law) and the same responsibilities as experienced in a heterosexual marriage. How is that bad or "wrong"?

If you believe in what the bible or Quran say then you will see its bad. You are right in the sense that it doesn't correspond to people who dont believe in these books, but like I said, i used it as a platform for not crossing the lines of what humans should do. So even if they do marry they can't make children, and homosexuality actually brings more diseases

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pat-robertson-gay-marriage-only-brings-disease-and-suffering-video/politics/2012/05/15/39622[/quote]

[RainBear]

By the way, Slovenya, I have no interest in what Pat Robertson has to say about any topic. His opinions are not relevant to my life.

Same-sex marriage would simply confer upon the same-sex couple the same legal rights and responsibilities that a heterosexual couple legally enjoys now. It does not require your mosque or someone's church to officiate at such weddings. It does not require you to marry someone of the same gender. It simply confers the same rights (over 1,000 of them under federal law) and the same responsibilities as experienced in a heterosexual marriage. How is that bad or "wrong"?

If you believe in what the bible or Quran say then you will see its bad. You are right in the sense that it doesn't correspond to people who dont believe in these books, but like I said, i used it as a platform for not crossing the lines of what humans should do. So even if they do marry they can't make children, and homosexuality actually brings more diseases

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pat-robertson-gay-marriage-only-brings-disease-and-suffering-video/politics/2012/05/15/39622

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

[Menassa]

So did Nimrod... and Nebuchadnezzar.

Speaking of which, is Nimrod rightly accused of rebelling against God with the Tower of Babel? I've never heard the actual verse where he commands his followers to build it.

The Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah never commanded their subjects to Sin.

As a King leader Nimrod was in complete control of his subjects.

[Slovenya]

Slovenya, then you support Lesbianism as it does not bring about as many diseases as heterosexuality does?

Also, as for procreation, ... There are couples who are incapable of bearing children or who do not wish to bear children. Should their marriages by voided because of the lack of children?

Lesbianism is part of homosexuality, no I dont agree with it either. and just because a heterosexual couple are married and dont want kids they still have the sexual parts to safely have intercourse, the way nature intended it.

[Agymnum]

Speaking of which, is Nimrod rightly accused of rebelling against God with the Tower of Babel? I've never heard the actual verse where he commands his followers to build it.

The Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah never commanded their subjects to Sin.

As a King leader Nimrod was in complete control of his subjects.

Interesting, so not direct order but instead inherited responsibility.

I must say, theology is quite interesting.

[Menassa]

The Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah never commanded their subjects to Sin.

As a King leader Nimrod was in complete control of his subjects.

Interesting, so not direct order but instead inherited responsibility.

I must say, theology is quite interesting.

Though I don't think it's expressed specifically he probably commanded and aided in the building of the Tower.

[Neutraligon]

Slovenya, then you support Lesbianism as it does not bring about as many diseases as heterosexuality does?

Also, as for procreation, ... There are couples who are incapable of bearing children or who do not wish to bear children. Should their marriages by voided because of the lack of children?

Lesbianism is part of homosexuality, no I dont agree with it either. and just because a heterosexual couple are married and dont want kids they still have the sexual parts to safely have intercourse, the way nature intended it.

Actually, so do homosexuals. They can also safely have sex, as long as they follow procedures such as making sure they do not have and STDs and using a condom. Further nature cannot have intent.

[RainBear]

Slovenya, what part of nature? Nature has demonstrated a great degree of adaptability in sexual matters and homosexual acts have been documented in various species.

Seriously, you cannot argue against homosexuality by saying it is unnatural when it happens in nature and you cannot argue against homosexuality by considering it to be animalistic when you have already argued that it does not happen in nature. The two arguments cancel each other out!

Slovenya, then you support Lesbianism as it does not bring about as many diseases as heterosexuality does?

Also, as for procreation, ... There are couples who are incapable of bearing children or who do not wish to bear children. Should their marriages by voided because of the lack of children?

Lesbianism is part of homosexuality, no I dont agree with it either. and just because a heterosexual couple are married and dont want kids they still have the sexual parts to safely have intercourse, the way nature intended it.

[Slovenya]

Actually, so do homosexuals. They can also safely have sex, as long as they follow procedures such as making sure they do not have and STDs and using a condom. Further nature cannot have intent.

anal sex is very dangerous and does harm even if there are no stds.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

[RainBear]

Is that an opinion or can you cite your sources?

Actually, so do homosexuals. They can also safely have sex, as long as they follow procedures such as making sure they do not have and STDs and using a condom. Further nature cannot have intent.

anal sex is very dangerous and does harm even if there are no stds.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

[Neutraligon]

Actually, so do homosexuals. They can also safely have sex, as long as they follow procedures such as making sure they do not have and STDs and using a condom. Further nature cannot have intent.

anal sex is very dangerous and does harm even if there are no stds.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

The family research council has a know bias, anything they say is highly suspect.

[Agymnum]

Actually, so do homosexuals. They can also safely have sex, as long as they follow procedures such as making sure they do not have and STDs and using a condom. Further nature cannot have intent.

anal sex is very dangerous and does harm even if there are no stds.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

Family Research Council is a conservative bullshit idea generator. Try again with something unbiased.

[RainBear]

By the way, not all same-sex couples engage in anal sex. My cousin and her wife do not do so, for example.

Is that an opinion or can you cite your sources?

anal sex is very dangerous and does harm even if there are no stds.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

[Slovenya]

Slovenya, what part of nature? Nature has demonstrated a great degree of adaptability in sexual matters and homosexual acts have been documented in various species.

Seriously, you cannot argue against homosexuality by saying it is unnatural when it happens in nature and you cannot argue against homosexuality by considering it to be animalistic when you have already argued that it does not happen in nature. The two arguments cancel each other out!

no they dont because one is the way nature intends things, and another is the guidance and knowledge people have of what is right and wrong. We know killing is bad for so and so reason, we know stealing is bad for so and so reason. Yes animals do have homosexual sex but they cant reason that nature distinguished male from female.

[Neutraligon]

Slovenya, what part of nature? Nature has demonstrated a great degree of adaptability in sexual matters and homosexual acts have been documented in various species.

Seriously, you cannot argue against homosexuality by saying it is unnatural when it happens in nature and you cannot argue against homosexuality by considering it to be animalistic when you have already argued that it does not happen in nature. The two arguments cancel each other out!

no they dont because one is the way nature intends things, and another is the guidance and knowledge people have of what is right and wrong. We know killing is bad for so and so reason, we know stealing is bad for so and so reason. Yes animals do have homosexual sex but they cant reason that nature distinguished male from female.

Nature cannot have any intention, period; Nature itself has no conscious. Killing stealing and the such are bad because they cause harm to another person, consensual sex does not in and of itself cause harm to another person.

[Agymnum]

Slovenya, what part of nature? Nature has demonstrated a great degree of adaptability in sexual matters and homosexual acts have been documented in various species.

Seriously, you cannot argue against homosexuality by saying it is unnatural when it happens in nature and you cannot argue against homosexuality by considering it to be animalistic when you have already argued that it does not happen in nature. The two arguments cancel each other out!

no they dont because one is the way nature intends things, and another is the guidance and knowledge people have of what is right and wrong. We know killing is bad for so and so reason, we know stealing is bad for so and so reason. Yes animals do have homosexual sex but they cant reason that nature distinguished male from female.

Fairly sure animals know male from female, otherwise they would go extinct from males humping males and then never having children.

Homosexuality is a natural occurrence in nature, and not because animals make mistakes. They're far too well-evolved for homosexuality in nature to be a mistake occurrence. Every trait has a purpose, in accordance with natural selection, whether that purpose is clear or not.