It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by XplanetX
If that is what you think the natural proclivity of everyone is, if gay marriage was endorsed, then that's um, pretty amuzing!
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
You wrote:
["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]
What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.
I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.
You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.
(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).
Originally posted by XplanetX
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
You wrote:
["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]
What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.
I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.
You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.
(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).
Hello Bogomil.
If what I am discussing has no precedent, then I would be inclined to agree that I am just making wild speculation. Unfortunately it is not without precedent.
Originally posted by bogomil
Originally posted by XplanetX
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
You wrote:
["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]
What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.
I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.
You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.
(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).
Hello Bogomil.
If what I am discussing has no precedent, then I would be inclined to agree that I am just making wild speculation. Unfortunately it is not without precedent.
A sensible answer, and I agree with you, that many social models have demonstrated less than 'decent' attitudes (based on various self-proclaimed 'absolutes').
But that is however not the point until you present an overall and generally acceptable reference-frame for these claims of yours, which I responded to. Basically you just presented something 'bad' (according to contemporary general standards), and then without further ado you continued to imply, that the homophobia of your 'god' is the 'answer'~solution for this 'bad'.
You just forgot to mention the missing link in this chain of 'reasoning'.
The point is that it is a slippery slope. If you promote homosexuality through the state government as a right for others then you are condoning the behaviour. You cannot call yourself a christian and be diplomatic about this issue.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by XplanetX
The point is that it is a slippery slope. If you promote homosexuality through the state government as a right for others then you are condoning the behaviour. You cannot call yourself a christian and be diplomatic about this issue.
that isn't true at all. i recognize that people have the god-given right to reject him and do their own thing. they'll reap the consequences, but it's their choice, so long as they aren't harming others.
when does god consider two people married? do you think he accepts polygamy and adultery? many of the more prominant people in the bible committed both, yet i'm sure you consider them in heaven. adultery is prohibited in the ten commandments, yet two homosexuals obtaining a marriage certificate isn't. david, solomon, and all the others went to heaven, but you think i'm not a christian for supporting god-given free will?
Originally posted by bogomil
Originally posted by XplanetX
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
You wrote:
["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]
What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.
I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.
You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.
(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).
Hello Bogomil.
If what I am discussing has no precedent, then I would be inclined to agree that I am just making wild speculation. Unfortunately it is not without precedent.
A sensible answer, and I agree with you, that many social models have demonstrated less than 'decent' attitudes (based on various self-proclaimed 'absolutes').
But that is however not the point until you present an overall and generally acceptable reference-frame for these claims of yours, which I responded to. Basically you just presented something 'bad' (according to contemporary general standards), and then without further ado you continued to imply, that the homophobia of your 'god' is the 'answer'~solution for this 'bad'.
You just forgot to mention the missing link in this chain of 'reasoning'.
Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
reply to post by XplanetX
I'm loosing sight of the basis of your argument is, could you please refresh? Is it the whole "slippery slope" thing? If so, what exactly is this precedent that you speek of? I very much want to understand what your reasoning is since nobody has been able to successfully counter your argument.
Originally posted by XplanetX
Originally posted by bogomil
Originally posted by XplanetX
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
You wrote:
["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]
What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.
I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.
You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.
(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).
Hello Bogomil.
If what I am discussing has no precedent, then I would be inclined to agree that I am just making wild speculation. Unfortunately it is not without precedent.
A sensible answer, and I agree with you, that many social models have demonstrated less than 'decent' attitudes (based on various self-proclaimed 'absolutes').
But that is however not the point until you present an overall and generally acceptable reference-frame for these claims of yours, which I responded to. Basically you just presented something 'bad' (according to contemporary general standards), and then without further ado you continued to imply, that the homophobia of your 'god' is the 'answer'~solution for this 'bad'.
You just forgot to mention the missing link in this chain of 'reasoning'.
There is only an implied 'missing link' in my chain of reasoning because I am communicating with another person that claims to be a christian. I would not bother trying to make the same point with a non-believer as there would be very little common ground on this issue.
Here is something to consider from a biological perspective:
If homosexuality did not exist then life would carry on, if heterosexuality did not exist then the human race would be extinct within 125 years (give or take).
Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
reply to post by XplanetX
I’m still going to say unprecedented. The examples that you gave listed the age of twelve as the legal age of consent for any sexual act, if you read further into Greek marriage laws, you will see that this was the age of consent for heterosexual marriage and that there was no homosexual marriage even in ancient Greece. It has been quite common up until the last century or so for the age of maturity to be child bearing age which is around the age of twelve.
So your example contradicts your point and further validates mine as even the ancient Greeks had a set age of consent (low as it may have been) and enforced those laws. Pedophilia will never be acceptable in America or any other developed country in the world, and if it does come to be, my guess is that you will have much bigger problems to worry about than gay marriage.
Now, I have a few points to make since you probably didn’t read my thread.
If you think of the real issue that is on the line here, it is the gays not being able to form a legal domestic partnership agreement which is what gives spouses the ability to act as a legal agent in their partners stead and gives something by which reference is made in case of divorce where property needs to be fairly divided. If the following are removed from the equation, you are left with a civil rights dispute that shows blatant lack of integrity within our legal system:
Sex, since there are no effective laws legally prohibiting homosexual acts. So, in essence, the sex is being had within the law and that is not what is being disputed.
The religious aspect of marriage, since the government does not tell you where and how your marriage ceremony is to be held. Also, there is no law against same sex commitment ceremonies, religious or otherwise.
Morality, since the government will not stop you from doing something unless it directly and negatively impacts another party, regardless of the morality of the situation.
In order to pass laws objectively while at the same time keeping with our liberal and democratic fundamentals as a society, we have to consider the civil rights of those that we consider immoral if we are to have any integrity at all.
Originally posted by Viking9019
The whole point of marriage is for a man and woman who are religious and wish to put their relationship in the hands of god.This has nothing to do with freewill.
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
You wrote:
["Once this becomes an acceptable practice in society and younger children see it as an acceptable practice, I can guarantee that more men will be able to take advantage of young boys."]
How can you guarantee that? And if these young boys are of legal age, and there is no illegal prostitution involved, how can that be anybody else's business?
Quote: [" The next phase will be a downgrading of the age of consent."]
And exactly what is the 'proper' consent age.
Quote: ["We are already witnessing the increased sexualisation of children and all of this ties in with the moral decay of our society."]
Let's have sharia laws then...they are really effective; "Orrf with their heads".
Quote: ["It is not 'gay marriage' on it's own that will be responsible for the decay but rather a combination of factors. What is considered heinous today will be considered as acceptable practice tomorrow."]
Yes, individual freedom outside self-appointed authority is a terrible thing.
Quote: ["I may come across as very black and white due to my beliefs in the teachings of Christ, I trust that he knows better."]
The peculiar argument, that 'he knows better' certainly does come across as black/white.
Quote: ["Jesus may not always explain in great detail in the scriptures the ramifications of certain sins"]
But then you can fill out where it's needed.
Quote: ["but we have enough history behind ourselves to see the outcome of a society that indulges in certain practices."]
That's true. Amongst them all the theocracies.
Quote: ["For the record, I do not hate gay people and I am not homophobic."]
"I just follow orders".
Quote: ["One of them is a christian that repented but I am no longer in contact with him. He was a member of a church that I attended many years ago. He was very open about his struggles and he was someone that helped me become more open about my own sins."]
You may believe this makes you appear tolerant. Imo the impression is the opposite. Self-righteous 'sinner' values.
edit on 21-9-2011 by bogomil because: addition
Originally posted by XplanetX
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
You wrote:
["Once this becomes an acceptable practice in society and younger children see it as an acceptable practice, I can guarantee that more men will be able to take advantage of young boys."]
How can you guarantee that? And if these young boys are of legal age, and there is no illegal prostitution involved, how can that be anybody else's business?
Quote: [" The next phase will be a downgrading of the age of consent."]
And exactly what is the 'proper' consent age.
Quote: ["We are already witnessing the increased sexualisation of children and all of this ties in with the moral decay of our society."]
Let's have sharia laws then...they are really effective; "Orrf with their heads".
Quote: ["It is not 'gay marriage' on it's own that will be responsible for the decay but rather a combination of factors. What is considered heinous today will be considered as acceptable practice tomorrow."]
Yes, individual freedom outside self-appointed authority is a terrible thing.
Quote: ["I may come across as very black and white due to my beliefs in the teachings of Christ, I trust that he knows better."]
The peculiar argument, that 'he knows better' certainly does come across as black/white.
Quote: ["Jesus may not always explain in great detail in the scriptures the ramifications of certain sins"]
But then you can fill out where it's needed.
Quote: ["but we have enough history behind ourselves to see the outcome of a society that indulges in certain practices."]
That's true. Amongst them all the theocracies.
Quote: ["For the record, I do not hate gay people and I am not homophobic."]
"I just follow orders".
Quote: ["One of them is a christian that repented but I am no longer in contact with him. He was a member of a church that I attended many years ago. He was very open about his struggles and he was someone that helped me become more open about my own sins."]
You may believe this makes you appear tolerant. Imo the impression is the opposite. Self-righteous 'sinner' values.
edit on 21-9-2011 by bogomil because: addition
You disect everything that I write and treat each sentence completely seperate from the overall theme of what I am writing and in some cases even out of context. I notice that you respond to a lot of other people on this forum using a less antagonistic approach. I obviously disturb you in some fashion and I also draw your attention, not that this is my intention but simply an observation. I could also disect everything that you write and use the same tactics but you are not that important. I do enjoy conversing with you and I don't want to ignore you but if you continue with this method of approach then my eyes may begin to glaze over what you are saying.
edit on 21-9-2011 by XplanetX because: spelling error