fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

---

Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .

---

So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?

and again, where are your references for this?

---

Dod you learn to answer arguments or just fling nonsense? Again I ask why beat up on gays because Paul had no clue about homosexuality as an orientation?

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

---

Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .

---

So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?

and again, where are your references for this?

---

Dod you learn to answer arguments or just fling nonsense? Again I ask why beat up on gays because Paul had no clue about homosexuality as an orientation?

---

I dunno about that. Some have speculated that the thorn in Paul's side was homosexuality, Bishop Spong for one.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Why only one partner?

---

Because that's entrenched in civil law.

People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.

Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.

Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?

A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.

---

Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.

---

What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?

That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?

In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.

Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?

---

There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?

---

Marriage has lots or purposes. "Support the traditional family" is only one of them.

Monogamy is another; most people make a commitment to only have sex with each other after marriage.

Estate planning is another. Couples can and do live together without marriage, but marriage confers lots of property rights, including inheritance and survivor benefits on pension plans (less relevant for people of my generation, but very relevant in my mother's generation).

Lower taxes is another, at least in the U.S. Married couples get a tax benefit (or at least they used to).

Love is another. At least in our society, people supposedly marry because they love each other and want to be each other's partners through life.

Family alliances and gain of wealth. In societies where marriages are arranged, marriage is more like a business transaction that may include the payment of a dowry. Parents want their children to marry someone of or above their class and status to assure their place in society.

My argument: Supporting the traditional family is a religious purpose--and definitions of "the traditional family" are different in different societies. In some, your family is anyone related to you, including far-flung cousins who are likely to show up and expect to share your wealth if you gain any (a real problem for economic development in some African nations). In our society, we operate mostly as nuclear family units. FLDS Mormons live in compounds where several wives and their children live under the rule of a single patriarch. In some countries, many generations of a single family live together.

Gay couples may not constitute a 'traditional family," but they are fully capable of a lifetime commitment, monogamy, raising children and loving a partner, and they deserve access to the civil benefits and protections marriage confers of inheritance and survivor benefits. Last year, I watched a gay man who had lived in our neighborhood since the 1970s be kicked out of the home he had shared with his lifelong partner because the home was in his partner's name, and the partner died without a will. The partner had run an antiques business for years, and his relatives sold off his antiques and the contents of his house. They allowed Bill to stay in the house until the sales were done, and he was then forced to move in with a sister in another state, having no assets of his own and nowhere else to go. Had they been married, the house and its contents would have automatically become Bill's.

---

Which is why I said they should be able to have a "civil" union to protect their property rights etc. That said you are treading into dumbass territory not to have a will, if you didn't have the ability to enter into a civil union.

You don't have to be gay to be screwed out of property rights when there is no will. Ancedotal evidence abounds for all stripes of people losing their rights when no will is involved.

Doc I just sent you a thank you for your honest answers on white privilege then you attack us with straw men?
"It would be a whole lot easier if these leftists would just say "they hate us"instead of pretending to be justified in their hatred." Hate you?

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.

---

Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.

If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.

Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.

Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

---

I'll try to address a few of these points one at a time:

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

.
"If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live."

I'm not following someone else's definition so much as I'm embracing what I believe to be the truth of the universe. Other people don't define or control my belief, but there are certain people who have tapped into the same truth from whom I can learn. You, on the other hand, are choosing Self. This, according to Christian faith, was the sin of Lucifer before the creation of Earth and the original human sin in the garden. This self-deification is also why I suggest you practice a form of Humanism.

.
"Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning."

Not that it matters, but I think you might be confusing Christian Scientists with Scientologists. Two very different things. Christian Science is a metaphysical religion centered largely around the belief that sickness is an illusion, where as Scientology is a science-fiction cult where you buy your way to the top like Tom Cruise and John Travolta have done.

.
"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."

How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet. I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET. Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.

.
I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law.

Me too. On abortion, I think a really bad interpretation of constitutional law was applied 45 years ago and as a result millions of human beings have been exterminated. That bad law should be changed, and this monstrous practice should be prohibited.


.
"And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions."

You have taken the disingenuous position of claiming that you are a champion of "choice" and "freedom" and therefore think government shouldn't intrude. But you don't feel this about other topics. For example, I assume you aren't pro-choice for rapists, right? They are choosing what to do with their bodies, and in so doing are violating the body of another person and visiting violence upon them. This same thing happens with abortion. You believe we should "impose with the force of law" a prohibition against rape. I believe we should do the same when it comes to killing the most defenseless human beings among us.

.
And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution.

I don't know a single Christian person who opposed a gay person having equal "civil rights like marriage." Most of us think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way. We view it as a sacred relationship, not a governmental one. As such, I don't oppose gay people entering into a lifelong committed relationship and having the exact same rights I would have for being in one that I call "marriage." I object to them calling it "marriage" for the same reason I object to calling a three-sided object a rectangle. It simply isn't what it is. But I don't think they should have less rights than those who do enter a marriage.

.
Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight.

Huh? Nobody (none that I know, anyway) believes this should be mandated somehow by government. That's crazy. Christians don't want a theocracy. They hold the views you described when it comes to their personal view on sin, but certainly not the law. I think it's a sin to tell a lie, to commit adultery, to covet your neighbors stuff, etc . . .but I don't think this has anything to do with law or government. I don't think there should be laws against those things and I don't think there should be against homosexuality. This isn't a civil rights issue. Not sure what you're talking about on this point with regard to "force of law."

---

• I couldn't help but comment on a couple of remarks. My remarks are by bullet points in italics.

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

• There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value.

"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."

How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet.

• Many people of religious faith, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise seem to believe that there is no need to be good stewards of what we have on this planet. They rather believe that god gave us dominion over it and we can do whatever want without regard, because he's in control and everything happens according to his plan. Many espouse apocalyptic views that negate the need to care for the future.

I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET.

• I used to hunt, fish and believe/embrace the conservationist rationalization/justification, until I began to seriously consider the premise. Do we have the right to take another animals only life for our personal pleasure and self esteem? Look how many species have disappeared with the proliferation of the human species. We are in the midst another mass extinction event of historic proportions, primarily due to human activities.

Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.

• Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the wellbeing of other species?

---

"There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value. "

Why? Why does all life deserve respect, care, and value? What is the basis for this assertion? If there is no meaning to life, and we are just one of millions of species and here by complete accident . . .where does this notion of "respect" and "good", etc, come from, and why are we compelled to carry it out?


I used to hunt, fish and believe/embrace the conservationist rationalization/justification, until I began to seriously consider the premise. Do we have the right to take another animals only life for our personal pleasure and self esteem? Look how many species have disappeared with the proliferation of the human species. We are in the midst another mass extinction event of historic proportions, primarily due to human activities.

What? The premise you just asserted is a patently false one. Who said anything about hunting and fishing merely for self esteem? Hunting and fishing is a form of harvest. It is done for human sustenance (and clothing, shelter, etc) and has been done for many thousands of years. Much like the taking of plant life. And regardless, isn't it you who argues from a strictly cold, evolutionary, godless sense? So yes, as the apex predator in your worldview we would have the "right" to consume other species to sustain our own. Every other species does so. Also, you just said we're in the midst of another mass extinction event, and due to human activities. But your use of the word "another" indicates that such events have happened in the past and are simply part of the evolution of our planet. What makes this any different? You don't believe in God because you've elevated humans to god status. Think about it.


Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the wellbeing of other species?

Again, your worldview is the one that would suggest "yes." Why wouldn't we (according to you)? There is no bigger meaning. We're only here for a few decades then we're gone. What is this "morality" you're referring to? Is it universal, or is it subjective like you claim meaning is?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Why only one partner?

---

Because that's entrenched in civil law.

People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.

Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.

Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?

A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.

---

Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.

---

What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?

That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?

In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.

Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?

---

There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?

---

Marriage has lots or purposes. "Support the traditional family" is only one of them.

Monogamy is another; most people make a commitment to only have sex with each other after marriage.

Estate planning is another. Couples can and do live together without marriage, but marriage confers lots of property rights, including inheritance and survivor benefits on pension plans (less relevant for people of my generation, but very relevant in my mother's generation).

Lower taxes is another, at least in the U.S. Married couples get a tax benefit (or at least they used to).

Love is another. At least in our society, people supposedly marry because they love each other and want to be each other's partners through life.

Family alliances and gain of wealth. In societies where marriages are arranged, marriage is more like a business transaction that may include the payment of a dowry. Parents want their children to marry someone of or above their class and status to assure their place in society.

My argument: Supporting the traditional family is a religious purpose--and definitions of "the traditional family" are different in different societies. In some, your family is anyone related to you, including far-flung cousins who are likely to show up and expect to share your wealth if you gain any (a real problem for economic development in some African nations). In our society, we operate mostly as nuclear family units. FLDS Mormons live in compounds where several wives and their children live under the rule of a single patriarch. In some countries, many generations of a single family live together.

Gay couples may not constitute a 'traditional family," but they are fully capable of a lifetime commitment, monogamy, raising children and loving a partner, and they deserve access to the civil benefits and protections marriage confers of inheritance and survivor benefits. Last year, I watched a gay man who had lived in our neighborhood since the 1970s be kicked out of the home he had shared with his lifelong partner because the home was in his partner's name, and the partner died without a will. The partner had run an antiques business for years, and his relatives sold off his antiques and the contents of his house. They allowed Bill to stay in the house until the sales were done, and he was then forced to move in with a sister in another state, having no assets of his own and nowhere else to go. Had they been married, the house and its contents would have automatically become Bill's.

---

You're talking about different individual motives for getting married. I'm talking about the purpose of the institution itself. Society doesn't recognize marriage in order for people to get tax benefits. In fact it's the other way around: we give tax benefits in order to encourage marriage. The question is why. Why is it important that gays are capable of commitment, monogamy, raising children, and loving a partner? You can do all those things without getting married.

There are two basic views on this. The conjugal view, which I described above, was shared by religious and non-religious people until recently. Marriages among multiple partners would have been counterproductive, among other reasons, because they would cast doubt on the father-child relationship. The revisionist view, which is now the law of the land, sees marriage essentially in terms of companionship. Raising children might be part of it, but there's no particular interest in binding specific parents to their specific biological children. The recognition of same-sex marriage makes that clear. So why not recognize three or four or ten loving caregivers instead of just two? Wouldn't it be even better in a way?

---

I've clearly stated the civic purpose of marriage. People may not get married for tax benefits or because of inheritance law or survivor benefits, but those are benefits available to and valued by married couples. Why should gay couples be excluded? Especially in a society where children are only one of many reasons people choose to marry, and many heterosexual couples are childless.

I'll let you make the argument for group marriage. The two models I'm familiar with--FLDS Mormons and Muslims--make it appear like a very bad option for women especially, bad for children, who compete with more siblings for fewer resources, and not much better for the men involved, who function (inadequately, with FLDS Mormons) as the sole support for a large number of dependents.

---

Again, there is no reason to exclude gays if your view is correct. The question is why you want to exclude groups of more than two. Is there any necessary reason for group marriages to be the kind of arrangements that some religious groups have? Couldn't they as well consist of free, enlightened individuals living on an equal basis with love and respect?

---

I've answered your question: our legal system is set up for marriages of 2 people.

I'll celebrate my 37th anniversary next week, and I honestly can't imagine a group marriage working. A marriage between two people is very hard work, and many people don't manage to sustain one of those.

And my "view" doesn't have to be "correct." Especially according to church doctrine.

If all people are equal under the law, that includes gay people. My "view" has nothing to do with it.

If we have a legal system that allows two people to marry, and if we now recognize that gay people aren't deviants or perverts or sinners and aren't "choosing a lifestyle," denying them the privilege of marrying the spouse of their choice makes no sense.

We haven't done that before because our laws were dominated by a conservative religious view--this is where "views" come into the picture--of gay people as sinners whose impulses are shameful, rather than as people who have same-sex attraction who, although they are a minority, are a common variation that has remained constant throughout recorded history.

---

Well, there are different views. Mine certainly isn't unique to Christianity. If anything it's our rule against polygamy that's more a religious view, since it was borrowed directly from canon law.

In any case, there are estimated to be around 500,000 de facto group marriages in the US. Apparently they work for some people, and some well known intellectuals have already called for recognition under the law. We shall see whether a few tweaks to the tax code are considered too high a price for equality.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

---

Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .

---

So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?

and again, where are your references for this?

---

Dod you learn to answer arguments or just fling nonsense? Again I ask why beat up on gays because Paul had no clue about homosexuality as an orientation?

---

Again, for the third time, where's your evidence?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Why only one partner?

---

Because that's entrenched in civil law.

People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.

Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.

Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?

A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.

---

Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.

---

What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?

That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?

In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.

Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?

---

There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?

---

Marriage has lots or purposes. "Support the traditional family" is only one of them.

Monogamy is another; most people make a commitment to only have sex with each other after marriage.

Estate planning is another. Couples can and do live together without marriage, but marriage confers lots of property rights, including inheritance and survivor benefits on pension plans (less relevant for people of my generation, but very relevant in my mother's generation).

Lower taxes is another, at least in the U.S. Married couples get a tax benefit (or at least they used to).

Love is another. At least in our society, people supposedly marry because they love each other and want to be each other's partners through life.

Family alliances and gain of wealth. In societies where marriages are arranged, marriage is more like a business transaction that may include the payment of a dowry. Parents want their children to marry someone of or above their class and status to assure their place in society.

My argument: Supporting the traditional family is a religious purpose--and definitions of "the traditional family" are different in different societies. In some, your family is anyone related to you, including far-flung cousins who are likely to show up and expect to share your wealth if you gain any (a real problem for economic development in some African nations). In our society, we operate mostly as nuclear family units. FLDS Mormons live in compounds where several wives and their children live under the rule of a single patriarch. In some countries, many generations of a single family live together.

Gay couples may not constitute a 'traditional family," but they are fully capable of a lifetime commitment, monogamy, raising children and loving a partner, and they deserve access to the civil benefits and protections marriage confers of inheritance and survivor benefits. Last year, I watched a gay man who had lived in our neighborhood since the 1970s be kicked out of the home he had shared with his lifelong partner because the home was in his partner's name, and the partner died without a will. The partner had run an antiques business for years, and his relatives sold off his antiques and the contents of his house. They allowed Bill to stay in the house until the sales were done, and he was then forced to move in with a sister in another state, having no assets of his own and nowhere else to go. Had they been married, the house and its contents would have automatically become Bill's.

---

You're talking about different individual motives for getting married. I'm talking about the purpose of the institution itself. Society doesn't recognize marriage in order for people to get tax benefits. In fact it's the other way around: we give tax benefits in order to encourage marriage. The question is why. Why is it important that gays are capable of commitment, monogamy, raising children, and loving a partner? You can do all those things without getting married.

There are two basic views on this. The conjugal view, which I described above, was shared by religious and non-religious people until recently. Marriages among multiple partners would have been counterproductive, among other reasons, because they would cast doubt on the father-child relationship. The revisionist view, which is now the law of the land, sees marriage essentially in terms of companionship. Raising children might be part of it, but there's no particular interest in binding specific parents to their specific biological children. The recognition of same-sex marriage makes that clear. So why not recognize three or four or ten loving caregivers instead of just two? Wouldn't it be even better in a way?

---

I've clearly stated the civic purpose of marriage. People may not get married for tax benefits or because of inheritance law or survivor benefits, but those are benefits available to and valued by married couples. Why should gay couples be excluded? Especially in a society where children are only one of many reasons people choose to marry, and many heterosexual couples are childless.

I'll let you make the argument for group marriage. The two models I'm familiar with--FLDS Mormons and Muslims--make it appear like a very bad option for women especially, bad for children, who compete with more siblings for fewer resources, and not much better for the men involved, who function (inadequately, with FLDS Mormons) as the sole support for a large number of dependents.

---

Again, there is no reason to exclude gays if your view is correct. The question is why you want to exclude groups of more than two. Is there any necessary reason for group marriages to be the kind of arrangements that some religious groups have? Couldn't they as well consist of free, enlightened individuals living on an equal basis with love and respect?

---

I've answered your question: our legal system is set up for marriages of 2 people.

I'll celebrate my 37th anniversary next week, and I honestly can't imagine a group marriage working. A marriage between two people is very hard work, and many people don't manage to sustain one of those.

And my "view" doesn't have to be "correct." Especially according to church doctrine.

If all people are equal under the law, that includes gay people. My "view" has nothing to do with it.

If we have a legal system that allows two people to marry, and if we now recognize that gay people aren't deviants or perverts or sinners and aren't "choosing a lifestyle," denying them the privilege of marrying the spouse of their choice makes no sense.

We haven't done that before because our laws were dominated by a conservative religious view--this is where "views" come into the picture--of gay people as sinners whose impulses are shameful, rather than as people who have same-sex attraction who, although they are a minority, are a common variation that has remained constant throughout recorded history.

---

Well, there are different views. Mine certainly isn't unique to Christianity. If anything it's our rule against polygamy that's more a religious view, since it was borrowed directly from canon law.

In any case, there are estimated to be around 500,000 de facto group marriages in the US. Apparently they work for some people, and some well known intellectuals have already called for recognition under the law. We shall see whether a few tweaks to the tax code are considered too high a price for equality.

---

Are you crediting the Catholic church with establishing marriage that involved only couples?

Here's a worthwhile article about marriage traditions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-marriage-has-always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-theyre-wrong/?utm_term=.2195b7941158

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Why only one partner?

---

Because that's entrenched in civil law.

People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.

Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.

Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?

A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.

---

Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.

---

What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?

That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?

In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.

Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?

---

There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?

---

Marriage has lots or purposes. "Support the traditional family" is only one of them.

Monogamy is another; most people make a commitment to only have sex with each other after marriage.

Estate planning is another. Couples can and do live together without marriage, but marriage confers lots of property rights, including inheritance and survivor benefits on pension plans (less relevant for people of my generation, but very relevant in my mother's generation).

Lower taxes is another, at least in the U.S. Married couples get a tax benefit (or at least they used to).

Love is another. At least in our society, people supposedly marry because they love each other and want to be each other's partners through life.

Family alliances and gain of wealth. In societies where marriages are arranged, marriage is more like a business transaction that may include the payment of a dowry. Parents want their children to marry someone of or above their class and status to assure their place in society.

My argument: Supporting the traditional family is a religious purpose--and definitions of "the traditional family" are different in different societies. In some, your family is anyone related to you, including far-flung cousins who are likely to show up and expect to share your wealth if you gain any (a real problem for economic development in some African nations). In our society, we operate mostly as nuclear family units. FLDS Mormons live in compounds where several wives and their children live under the rule of a single patriarch. In some countries, many generations of a single family live together.

Gay couples may not constitute a 'traditional family," but they are fully capable of a lifetime commitment, monogamy, raising children and loving a partner, and they deserve access to the civil benefits and protections marriage confers of inheritance and survivor benefits. Last year, I watched a gay man who had lived in our neighborhood since the 1970s be kicked out of the home he had shared with his lifelong partner because the home was in his partner's name, and the partner died without a will. The partner had run an antiques business for years, and his relatives sold off his antiques and the contents of his house. They allowed Bill to stay in the house until the sales were done, and he was then forced to move in with a sister in another state, having no assets of his own and nowhere else to go. Had they been married, the house and its contents would have automatically become Bill's.

---

You're talking about different individual motives for getting married. I'm talking about the purpose of the institution itself. Society doesn't recognize marriage in order for people to get tax benefits. In fact it's the other way around: we give tax benefits in order to encourage marriage. The question is why. Why is it important that gays are capable of commitment, monogamy, raising children, and loving a partner? You can do all those things without getting married.

There are two basic views on this. The conjugal view, which I described above, was shared by religious and non-religious people until recently. Marriages among multiple partners would have been counterproductive, among other reasons, because they would cast doubt on the father-child relationship. The revisionist view, which is now the law of the land, sees marriage essentially in terms of companionship. Raising children might be part of it, but there's no particular interest in binding specific parents to their specific biological children. The recognition of same-sex marriage makes that clear. So why not recognize three or four or ten loving caregivers instead of just two? Wouldn't it be even better in a way?

---

I've clearly stated the civic purpose of marriage. People may not get married for tax benefits or because of inheritance law or survivor benefits, but those are benefits available to and valued by married couples. Why should gay couples be excluded? Especially in a society where children are only one of many reasons people choose to marry, and many heterosexual couples are childless.

I'll let you make the argument for group marriage. The two models I'm familiar with--FLDS Mormons and Muslims--make it appear like a very bad option for women especially, bad for children, who compete with more siblings for fewer resources, and not much better for the men involved, who function (inadequately, with FLDS Mormons) as the sole support for a large number of dependents.

---

Again, there is no reason to exclude gays if your view is correct. The question is why you want to exclude groups of more than two. Is there any necessary reason for group marriages to be the kind of arrangements that some religious groups have? Couldn't they as well consist of free, enlightened individuals living on an equal basis with love and respect?

---

I've answered your question: our legal system is set up for marriages of 2 people.

I'll celebrate my 37th anniversary next week, and I honestly can't imagine a group marriage working. A marriage between two people is very hard work, and many people don't manage to sustain one of those.

And my "view" doesn't have to be "correct." Especially according to church doctrine.

If all people are equal under the law, that includes gay people. My "view" has nothing to do with it.

If we have a legal system that allows two people to marry, and if we now recognize that gay people aren't deviants or perverts or sinners and aren't "choosing a lifestyle," denying them the privilege of marrying the spouse of their choice makes no sense.

We haven't done that before because our laws were dominated by a conservative religious view--this is where "views" come into the picture--of gay people as sinners whose impulses are shameful, rather than as people who have same-sex attraction who, although they are a minority, are a common variation that has remained constant throughout recorded history.

---

Well, there are different views. Mine certainly isn't unique to Christianity. If anything it's our rule against polygamy that's more a religious view, since it was borrowed directly from canon law.

In any case, there are estimated to be around 500,000 de facto group marriages in the US. Apparently they work for some people, and some well known intellectuals have already called for recognition under the law. We shall see whether a few tweaks to the tax code are considered too high a price for equality.

---

Are you crediting the Catholic church with establishing marriage that involved only couples?

Here's a worthwhile article about marriage traditions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-marriage-has-always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-theyre-wrong/?utm_term=.2195b7941158

---

No, only with suppressing polygamy in medieval Europe.

The WaPo editorialist claims to address what marriage is, but he quickly digresses to matters of motivation and circumstance. So we read that marriage was once about finding good in-laws. But how did one do that? By wedding a person of the opposite sex. Or it was about securing economic advantage. Again, how? By wedding a person of the opposite sex. He says it wasn't always about love (no kidding). By now we're dying to know what it was about, but he still avoids the question (spoiler alert: it was still about wedding a person of the opposite sex). One could go on and on. For example, sometimes it was about forming political alliances. Guess how?

He eventually concedes that with some rare exceptions, conservatives are right about the history. His real argument is that a history of oppression doesn't justify further oppression, which of course is true, but it doesn't mean much unless you've established the fact of oppression to begin with.

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

---

Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .

---

So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?

and again, where are your references for this?

---

Dod you learn to answer arguments or just fling nonsense? Again I ask why beat up on gays because Paul had no clue about homosexuality as an orientation?

---

Again, for the third time, where's your evidence?

---

evidence as to a psychological understanding of homosexuality as an orientation as a late 19th century concept?
Paul had no idea of sexual orientation.
I don't want to be a smart ass but but here a lengthy history.
I have read it and learned it being a psychologist, theologian, and historian.

Most Evangelical or SBC churches are so afraid that they read it and simply go in hearsay. But the evangelical and orthodox Christian View of homosexuality is out of date and clinging to a gross distortion and interpretation of Paul.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

---

Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .

---

So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?

and again, where are your references for this?

---

Dod you learn to answer arguments or just fling nonsense? Again I ask why beat up on gays because Paul had no clue about homosexuality as an orientation?

---

Again, for the third time, where's your evidence?

---

evidence as to a psychological understanding of homosexuality as an orientation as a late 19th century concept?
Paul had no idea of sexual orientation.
I don't want to be a smart ass but but here a lengthy history.
I have read it and learned it being a psychologist, theologian, and historian.

Most Evangelical or SBC churches are so afraid that they read it and simply go in hearsay. But the evangelical and orthodox Christian View of homosexuality is out of date and clinging to a gross distortion and interpretation of Paul.

---

It's your view that's out of date. The psychological reality is more complex and also much closer to Paul's understanding.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

---

Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .

---

So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?

and again, where are your references for this?

---

Dod you learn to answer arguments or just fling nonsense? Again I ask why beat up on gays because Paul had no clue about homosexuality as an orientation?

---

Again, for the third time, where's your evidence?

---

evidence as to a psychological understanding of homosexuality as an orientation as a late 19th century concept?
Paul had no idea of sexual orientation.
I don't want to be a smart ass but but here a lengthy history.
I have read it and learned it being a psychologist, theologian, and historian.

Most Evangelical or SBC churches are so afraid that they read it and simply go in hearsay. But the evangelical and orthodox Christian View of homosexuality is out of date and clinging to a gross distortion and interpretation of Paul.

---

Paul knew Greek culture. He knew about homosexuality. The Sacred Band of Thebes predates Paul by centuries.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

---

Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .

---

So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?

and again, where are your references for this?

---

Dod you learn to answer arguments or just fling nonsense? Again I ask why beat up on gays because Paul had no clue about homosexuality as an orientation?

---

Again, for the third time, where's your evidence?

---

I have read it and learned it being a psychologist, theologian, and historian.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

---

Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .

---

So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?

and again, where are your references for this?

---

Dod you learn to answer arguments or just fling nonsense? Again I ask why beat up on gays because Paul had no clue about homosexuality as an orientation?

---

Again, for the third time, where's your evidence?

---

evidence as to a psychological understanding of homosexuality as an orientation as a late 19th century concept?
Paul had no idea of sexual orientation.
I don't want to be a smart ass but but here a lengthy history.
I have read it and learned it being a psychologist, theologian, and historian.

Most Evangelical or SBC churches are so afraid that they read it and simply go in hearsay. But the evangelical and orthodox Christian View of homosexuality is out of date and clinging to a gross distortion and interpretation of Paul.

---

Paul had no idea of sexual orientation? How can you possibly know that? How can you prove that he didn't?

and please, refrain from calling yourself a theologian....that's just scary. Perhaps theological manipulator would be better.

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

---

Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .

---

So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?

and again, where are your references for this?

---

Dod you learn to answer arguments or just fling nonsense? Again I ask why beat up on gays because Paul had no clue about homosexuality as an orientation?

---

Again, for the third time, where's your evidence?

---

evidence as to a psychological understanding of homosexuality as an orientation as a late 19th century concept?
Paul had no idea of sexual orientation.
I don't want to be a smart ass but but here a lengthy history.
I have read it and learned it being a psychologist, theologian, and historian.

Most Evangelical or SBC churches are so afraid that they read it and simply go in hearsay. But the evangelical and orthodox Christian View of homosexuality is out of date and clinging to a gross distortion and interpretation of Paul.

---

Paul knew Greek culture. He knew about homosexuality. The Sacred Band of Thebes predates Paul by centuries.

---

Quash will the ace!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Why only one partner?

---

Because that's entrenched in civil law.

People can and do practice plural marriage. But all of our systems are set up to deal with married couples or with successive marriages, not plural marriages.

Which makes it possible for religions that do practice plural marriage, such as the FLDS Mormons, to exploit the system by applying for welfare for plural wives as they bear child after child for the patriarch with the support of the federal government, since only wife # 1 is legal. Under the law, all the sister wives are single mothers, and thier children are eliglble for Medicaid and whatever dole we provide these days--used to be AFDC.

Do you think the law should allow plural marriages of various types, and if so, how would that work?

A group of people can certainly live together now and call it a marriage--that's what the FLDS Mormons do--and we obviously haven't solved the problem of how to make sure we don't subsidize that.

---

Leaving aside any question of divine purpose, the human purpose of marriage is, or was, to bind parents to their natural offspring. All the essential elements of marriage--the requirement of two and only two partners, of opposite sexes, in an exclusive, permanent relationship--existed for this reason. Today it no longer applies. I don't think we should allow plural marriages, but what's the compelling reason to prohibit them? Laws can change, as we've seen.

---

What's the compelling reason to keep people from choosing to marry someone of the same sex?

That's not religious, as in "They're sinners according to my Church, so I don't want their 'lifestyle' legitimized by the law"?

In addition to being a religious institution, marriage confers lots of civil benefits--rights of inheritance, rights of health care decision making as the "next of kin," a right gay couples realized they needed during the AIDS crisis if they wanted their putative spouse to make decisions rather than a family member whom they may not have seen for years, parenting rights, etc. Our society subsidizes married couples with more favorable tax treatment.

Why should gay couples who want to marry not have these same rights?

---

There is no reason, unless the purpose of marriage is to support the traditional family. So how is polygamy any different?

---

Marriage has lots or purposes. "Support the traditional family" is only one of them.

Monogamy is another; most people make a commitment to only have sex with each other after marriage.

Estate planning is another. Couples can and do live together without marriage, but marriage confers lots of property rights, including inheritance and survivor benefits on pension plans (less relevant for people of my generation, but very relevant in my mother's generation).

Lower taxes is another, at least in the U.S. Married couples get a tax benefit (or at least they used to).

Love is another. At least in our society, people supposedly marry because they love each other and want to be each other's partners through life.

Family alliances and gain of wealth. In societies where marriages are arranged, marriage is more like a business transaction that may include the payment of a dowry. Parents want their children to marry someone of or above their class and status to assure their place in society.

My argument: Supporting the traditional family is a religious purpose--and definitions of "the traditional family" are different in different societies. In some, your family is anyone related to you, including far-flung cousins who are likely to show up and expect to share your wealth if you gain any (a real problem for economic development in some African nations). In our society, we operate mostly as nuclear family units. FLDS Mormons live in compounds where several wives and their children live under the rule of a single patriarch. In some countries, many generations of a single family live together.

Gay couples may not constitute a 'traditional family," but they are fully capable of a lifetime commitment, monogamy, raising children and loving a partner, and they deserve access to the civil benefits and protections marriage confers of inheritance and survivor benefits. Last year, I watched a gay man who had lived in our neighborhood since the 1970s be kicked out of the home he had shared with his lifelong partner because the home was in his partner's name, and the partner died without a will. The partner had run an antiques business for years, and his relatives sold off his antiques and the contents of his house. They allowed Bill to stay in the house until the sales were done, and he was then forced to move in with a sister in another state, having no assets of his own and nowhere else to go. Had they been married, the house and its contents would have automatically become Bill's.

---

You're talking about different individual motives for getting married. I'm talking about the purpose of the institution itself. Society doesn't recognize marriage in order for people to get tax benefits. In fact it's the other way around: we give tax benefits in order to encourage marriage. The question is why. Why is it important that gays are capable of commitment, monogamy, raising children, and loving a partner? You can do all those things without getting married.

There are two basic views on this. The conjugal view, which I described above, was shared by religious and non-religious people until recently. Marriages among multiple partners would have been counterproductive, among other reasons, because they would cast doubt on the father-child relationship. The revisionist view, which is now the law of the land, sees marriage essentially in terms of companionship. Raising children might be part of it, but there's no particular interest in binding specific parents to their specific biological children. The recognition of same-sex marriage makes that clear. So why not recognize three or four or ten loving caregivers instead of just two? Wouldn't it be even better in a way?

---

I've clearly stated the civic purpose of marriage. People may not get married for tax benefits or because of inheritance law or survivor benefits, but those are benefits available to and valued by married couples. Why should gay couples be excluded? Especially in a society where children are only one of many reasons people choose to marry, and many heterosexual couples are childless.

I'll let you make the argument for group marriage. The two models I'm familiar with--FLDS Mormons and Muslims--make it appear like a very bad option for women especially, bad for children, who compete with more siblings for fewer resources, and not much better for the men involved, who function (inadequately, with FLDS Mormons) as the sole support for a large number of dependents.

---

Again, there is no reason to exclude gays if your view is correct. The question is why you want to exclude groups of more than two. Is there any necessary reason for group marriages to be the kind of arrangements that some religious groups have? Couldn't they as well consist of free, enlightened individuals living on an equal basis with love and respect?

---

I've answered your question: our legal system is set up for marriages of 2 people.

I'll celebrate my 37th anniversary next week, and I honestly can't imagine a group marriage working. A marriage between two people is very hard work, and many people don't manage to sustain one of those.

And my "view" doesn't have to be "correct." Especially according to church doctrine.

If all people are equal under the law, that includes gay people. My "view" has nothing to do with it.

If we have a legal system that allows two people to marry, and if we now recognize that gay people aren't deviants or perverts or sinners and aren't "choosing a lifestyle," denying them the privilege of marrying the spouse of their choice makes no sense.

We haven't done that before because our laws were dominated by a conservative religious view--this is where "views" come into the picture--of gay people as sinners whose impulses are shameful, rather than as people who have same-sex attraction who, although they are a minority, are a common variation that has remained constant throughout recorded history.

---

Well, there are different views. Mine certainly isn't unique to Christianity. If anything it's our rule against polygamy that's more a religious view, since it was borrowed directly from canon law.

In any case, there are estimated to be around 500,000 de facto group marriages in the US. Apparently they work for some people, and some well known intellectuals have already called for recognition under the law. We shall see whether a few tweaks to the tax code are considered too high a price for equality.

---

Are you crediting the Catholic church with establishing marriage that involved only couples?

Here's a worthwhile article about marriage traditions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-marriage-has-always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-theyre-wrong/?utm_term=.2195b7941158

---

No, only with suppressing polygamy in medieval Europe.

The WaPo editorialist claims to address what marriage is, but he quickly digresses to matters of motivation and circumstance. So we read that marriage was once about finding good in-laws. But how did one do that? By wedding a person of the opposite sex. Or it was about securing economic advantage. Again, how? By wedding a person of the opposite sex. He says it wasn't always about love (no kidding). By now we're dying to know what it was about, but he still avoids the question (spoiler alert: it was still about wedding a person of the opposite sex). One could go on and on. For example, sometimes it was about forming political alliances. Guess how?

He eventually concedes that with some rare exceptions, conservatives are right about the history. His real argument is that a history of oppression doesn't justify further oppression, which of course is true, but it doesn't mean much unless you've established the fact of oppression to begin with.

---

The point of the WaPo article is that marriage has changed over the past two centuries due to dramatic improvements in women's economic and political status. Women gained the vote about 100 years ago, and they also started joining the professions and becoming educated in higher numbers, although that access was limited until the 1970s, possibly due to the expanded contraception options that became available in the 1960s.

The availability of safe and reliable contraception has been a major factor in women's access to professional schools and jobs. Women can still choose not to use contraception or, even if they use it to time or limit the number of children they have, to be stay at home mothers for all or part of their lives.

But most women in the first world choose to use contraception, and most either want to work because they have a vocation or talent for law or teaching or medicine or business, or find they must work at the best job they can get to support themselves and their children, either because one income isn't enough or because they're single, divorced or married to an underemployed or disabled man. Women who must work to support themselves and their families really benefit from having more options and the availability of reliable contraception.

Jinx 2 said:

---

But most women in the first world choose to use contraception, and most either want to work because they have a vocation or talent for law or teaching or medicine or business, or find they must work at the best job they can get to support themselves and their children, either because one income isn't enough or because they're single, divorced or married to an underemployed or disabled man. Women who must work to support themselves and their families really benefit from having more options and the availability of reliable contraception.

---

It's not JUST because they want a career. Many have no such desire. Yet even women who do not work outside the home depend on contraceptives because they want to be able to plan their families -- when to have children and how many.

Once upon a time, the Catholic Church was able to make a virtue out of what was physical necessity. Families were large because (a) most Americans lived on farms, where more help was needed and (b) there was a good chance that some of the children wouldn't survive into adulthood; if you only had two kids, one bad season of scarlet fever or rubella could leave you with none. After we prevailed over such diseases and after most Americans moved away from depending on agriculture, large families were no longer a necessity; in fact, for many, they could be more of a financial burden than a financial help. Yet the Church insisted that women could not be allowed to plan the size and spacing of their families even if they didn't rely on abortion for that.

I am not in favor of pure abortion on demand. But the conversation for me comes to an end when someone tells me that contraceptives are immoral and are somehow equal to abortion. I just shake my head and shake the dust off my sandals. There's no reasoning with that position.

bubbadog said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

But most women in the first world choose to use contraception, and most either want to work because they have a vocation or talent for law or teaching or medicine or business, or find they must work at the best job they can get to support themselves and their children, either because one income isn't enough or because they're single, divorced or married to an underemployed or disabled man. Women who must work to support themselves and their families really benefit from having more options and the availability of reliable contraception.

---

It's not JUST because they want a career. Many have no such desire. Yet even women who do not work outside the home depend on contraceptives because they want to be able to plan their families -- when to have children and how many.

Once upon a time, the Catholic Church was able to make a virtue out of what was physical necessity. Families were large because (a) most Americans lived on farms, where more help was needed and (b) there was a good chance that some of the children wouldn't survive into adulthood; if you only had two kids, one bad season of scarlet fever or rubella could leave you with none. After we prevailed over such diseases and after most Americans moved away from depending on agriculture, large families were no longer a necessity; in fact, for many, they could be more of a financial burden than a financial help. Yet the Church insisted that women could not be allowed to plan the size and spacing of their families even if they didn't rely on abortion for that.

I am not in favor of pure abortion on demand. But the conversation for me comes to an end when someone tells me that contraceptives are immoral and are somehow equal to abortion. I just shake my head and shake the dust off my sandals. There's no reasoning with that position.

---

Two good posts in a row! Bravo!

I've agreed with you twice. What is going on?

Really Sam? Paul up to date? Prove it.

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

But most women in the first world choose to use contraception, and most either want to work because they have a vocation or talent for law or teaching or medicine or business, or find they must work at the best job they can get to support themselves and their children, either because one income isn't enough or because they're single, divorced or married to an underemployed or disabled man. Women who must work to support themselves and their families really benefit from having more options and the availability of reliable contraception.

---

It's not JUST because they want a career. Many have no such desire. Yet even women who do not work outside the home depend on contraceptives because they want to be able to plan their families -- when to have children and how many.

Once upon a time, the Catholic Church was able to make a virtue out of what was physical necessity. Families were large because (a) most Americans lived on farms, where more help was needed and (b) there was a good chance that some of the children wouldn't survive into adulthood; if you only had two kids, one bad season of scarlet fever or rubella could leave you with none. After we prevailed over such diseases and after most Americans moved away from depending on agriculture, large families were no longer a necessity; in fact, for many, they could be more of a financial burden than a financial help. Yet the Church insisted that women could not be allowed to plan the size and spacing of their families even if they didn't rely on abortion for that.

I am not in favor of pure abortion on demand. But the conversation for me comes to an end when someone tells me that contraceptives are immoral and are somehow equal to abortion. I just shake my head and shake the dust off my sandals. There's no reasoning with that position.

---

Two good posts in a row! Bravo!

I've agreed with you twice. What is going on?

---

I'm a bit nervous about that myself.

Quash said "Paul knew Greek culture. He knew about homosexuality. The Sacred Band of Thebes predates Paul by centuries."
Paul knew about homosexual behavior not orientation and psychology. Are you making a case that Paul knew about sexual orientation? How is that related to scripture?

Waco1947 said:

---

Quash said "Paul knew Greek culture. He knew about homosexuality. The Sacred Band of Thebes predates Paul by centuries."
Paul knew about homosexual behavior not orientation and psychology. Are you making a case that Paul knew about sexual orientation? How is that related to scripture?

---

As I said before, Paul may have been gay according to some. Again, Bishop Spong is one who thought so.

And just because modern psychology began in the 19th century doesn't mean we only began to deal with homosexuality recently.

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quash said "Paul knew Greek culture. He knew about homosexuality. The Sacred Band of Thebes predates Paul by centuries."
Paul knew about homosexual behavior not orientation and psychology. Are you making a case that Paul knew about sexual orientation? How is that related to scripture?

---

As I said before, Paul may have been gay according to some. Again, Bishop Spong is one who thought so.

And just because modern psychology began in the 19th century doesn't mean we only began to deal with homosexuality recently.

---

I'm not making the point that we only began dealing with homosexuality recently. I am making the point that Paul dealt with in a misguided 1st century way. Many of us Christians are gaining new insights and acceptance of homosexuality because of recent studies on orientation. Paul was addressing a specific time and place with a 1st century understanding. It's all he had. It is inadequate for today's morality.

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quash said "Paul knew Greek culture. He knew about homosexuality. The Sacred Band of Thebes predates Paul by centuries."
Paul knew about homosexual behavior not orientation and psychology. Are you making a case that Paul knew about sexual orientation? How is that related to scripture?

---

As I said before, Paul may have been gay according to some. Again, Bishop Spong is one who thought so.

And just because modern psychology began in the 19th century doesn't mean we only began to deal with homosexuality recently.

---

I have not read Spong, but I am familiar with this interpretation. Some people think Paul is talking about homosexuality when he vaguely describes the "thorn in the flesh" that has afflicted him.

But I have also read a lot of other works on Paul. I am well convinced he was not gay. Nor do I believe he was talking about committed, monogamous homosexual relationships in the passages where he attacks homosexual behavior. If you're interested, a worthwhile book that covers this subject is called Paul among the People by Sarah Ruden. She is a scholar of classical Greek and Roman literature and embarked on this book to examine Paul's writings against the prevailing culture; this context is missing from what most Christians learn about Paul and his time, even in very good Bible studies.

One of her chapters is a description of the kinds of homosexual practices that were common in the Greco-Roman world of Paul's day.

Here's a link I found to the Amazon page that has a pretty good synopsis of the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Paul-Among-People-Reinterpreted-Reimagined-ebook/dp/B0036S0F62

Jinx 2 said:

---

Women's cycles vary. Some women have predictable cycles; others never do. If the five-day window you mention were totally predictable for all women, we would have very few "unplanned" pregnancies. The fact is, some women have irregular cycles, and their fertile periods are very hard to predict. Some women ovulate more than one egg; I had a work colleague whose first pregnancy was fraternal triplets--2 girls and a boy who was crushed to death in the womb. She spent half that pregnancy in bed, and was informed that all of her pregnancies were likely to be multiple and dangerous. She got her tubes tied. Your one-size-fits-all scenario may fit religious guidelines, but not real women.

---

Their are doctors that are educated on how to help women avoid these types of surgeries. Sadly, it's too easy for them to schedule a tubal ligation or stick a woman on the pill as a panacea.

Jinx 2 said:

---

The Guttmacher Institute says that "Couple who do not use any method of contraception have approximately an 85% chance of experiencing a pregnancy in a given year." https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states

---

I don't doubt their findings; however, NFP is different than just "unprotected" sex. It works in concert with a woman's body. It's proven to be approximately 98-99% effective in "controlling" pregnancy.

Would you agree that this is healthier for a woman than many other forms of contraception?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Avoiding a woman's fertile period also requires discipline from both couples. Women have not always been able to force that disicpline upon their husbands. Jewish law enforced a version of that discipline, but the period of time during which a woman is "unclean" and thus not available for sex is much longer, and hard to figure out. If you really want your eyes to cross, read this: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-laws-of-niddah/

---

The Jewish article in interesting. I'm glad that I'm not an Orthodox jew. Having said that, NFP guidelines are much easier to follow. A simple checking of the natural secretions and/or temp check and daily charting is not that inconvenient. Even in the husband doesn't engage in this process, a wife should inform the husband of her fertile periods. Study after study on NFP has shown that this has improved their relationships and enhanced their intimacy.

The divorce rate for couples that use NFP is less than 5%. For contracepting couples, 50%.

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.

---

Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.

If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.

Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.

Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

---

I'll try to address a few of these points one at a time:

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

.
"If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live."

I'm not following someone else's definition so much as I'm embracing what I believe to be the truth of the universe. Other people don't define or control my belief, but there are certain people who have tapped into the same truth from whom I can learn. You, on the other hand, are choosing Self. This, according to Christian faith, was the sin of Lucifer before the creation of Earth and the original human sin in the garden. This self-deification is also why I suggest you practice a form of Humanism.

.
"Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning."

Not that it matters, but I think you might be confusing Christian Scientists with Scientologists. Two very different things. Christian Science is a metaphysical religion centered largely around the belief that sickness is an illusion, where as Scientology is a science-fiction cult where you buy your way to the top like Tom Cruise and John Travolta have done.

.
"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."

How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet. I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET. Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.

.
I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law.

Me too. On abortion, I think a really bad interpretation of constitutional law was applied 45 years ago and as a result millions of human beings have been exterminated. That bad law should be changed, and this monstrous practice should be prohibited.


.
"And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions."

You have taken the disingenuous position of claiming that you are a champion of "choice" and "freedom" and therefore think government shouldn't intrude. But you don't feel this about other topics. For example, I assume you aren't pro-choice for rapists, right? They are choosing what to do with their bodies, and in so doing are violating the body of another person and visiting violence upon them. This same thing happens with abortion. You believe we should "impose with the force of law" a prohibition against rape. I believe we should do the same when it comes to killing the most defenseless human beings among us.

.
And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution.

I don't know a single Christian person who opposed a gay person having equal "civil rights like marriage." Most of us think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way. We view it as a sacred relationship, not a governmental one. As such, I don't oppose gay people entering into a lifelong committed relationship and having the exact same rights I would have for being in one that I call "marriage." I object to them calling it "marriage" for the same reason I object to calling a three-sided object a rectangle. It simply isn't what it is. But I don't think they should have less rights than those who do enter a marriage.

.
Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight.

Huh? Nobody (none that I know, anyway) believes this should be mandated somehow by government. That's crazy. Christians don't want a theocracy. They hold the views you described when it comes to their personal view on sin, but certainly not the law. I think it's a sin to tell a lie, to commit adultery, to covet your neighbors stuff, etc . . .but I don't think this has anything to do with law or government. I don't think there should be laws against those things and I don't think there should be against homosexuality. This isn't a civil rights issue. Not sure what you're talking about on this point with regard to "force of law."

---

• I couldn't help but comment on a couple of remarks. My remarks are by bullet points in italics.

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

• There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value.

"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."

How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet.

• Many people of religious faith, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise seem to believe that there is no need to be good stewards of what we have on this planet. They rather believe that god gave us dominion over it and we can do whatever want without regard, because he's in control and everything happens according to his plan. Many espouse apocalyptic views that negate the need to care for the future.

I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET.

• I used to hunt, fish and believe/embrace the conservationist rationalization/justification, until I began to seriously consider the premise. Do we have the right to take another animals only life for our personal pleasure and self esteem? Look how many species have disappeared with the proliferation of the human species. We are in the midst another mass extinction event of historic proportions, primarily due to human activities.

Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.

• Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the wellbeing of other species?

---

"There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value. "

Why? Why does all life deserve respect, care, and value? What is the basis for this assertion? If there is no meaning to life, and we are just one of millions of species and here by complete accident . . .where does this notion of "respect" and "good", etc, come from, and why are we compelled to carry it out?


I used to hunt, fish and believe/embrace the conservationist rationalization/justification, until I began to seriously consider the premise. Do we have the right to take another animals only life for our personal pleasure and self esteem? Look how many species have disappeared with the proliferation of the human species. We are in the midst another mass extinction event of historic proportions, primarily due to human activities.

What? The premise you just asserted is a patently false one. Who said anything about hunting and fishing merely for self esteem? Hunting and fishing is a form of harvest. It is done for human sustenance (and clothing, shelter, etc) and has been done for many thousands of years. Much like the taking of plant life. And regardless, isn't it you who argues from a strictly cold, evolutionary, godless sense? So yes, as the apex predator in your worldview we would have the "right" to consume other species to sustain our own. Every other species does so. Also, you just said we're in the midst of another mass extinction event, and due to human activities. But your use of the word "another" indicates that such events have happened in the past and are simply part of the evolution of our planet. What makes this any different? You don't believe in God because you've elevated humans to god status. Think about it.


Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the wellbeing of other species?

Again, your worldview is the one that would suggest "yes." Why wouldn't we (according to you)? There is no bigger meaning. We're only here for a few decades then we're gone. What is this "morality" you're referring to? Is it universal, or is it subjective like you claim meaning is?

---

Quote:

---

"There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value. "

Why? Why does all life deserve respect, care, and value? What is the basis for this assertion? If there is no meaning to life, and we are just one of millions of species and here by complete accident . . .where does this notion of "respect" and "good", etc, come from, and why are we compelled to carry it out?

---

Because we, as a more advanced evolutionary form of life, have cognitive reasoning skills that are inherent to our species. Our cognition can impact either positively or negatively all species especially those of lesser cognition. As such, our good fortune should impose a duty of reasonable care and responsibility for the wellbeing of all species. Our decisions not only impact us, but all species on this planet. Biodiversity and speciation is critical to a viable ecosystem which is sustainable to life. We are all interdependent on diverse speciation. We need look no further than Mars, which once had an atmosphere analogous to ours that may have been supportive of some forms of life. For various reasons, some known and others unknown, that atmosphere no longer exists. It is a next door neighbor example that planetary environments can change, and change fairly rapidly. The notion of respect and good arises from recognition of commonality and interdependence on each other (all species) for survival, and understanding of the unique position we are in as living entities in a universe that is mostly inhospitable. Why would you want to harm any being without cause?

Quote:

---

I used to hunt, fish and believe/embrace the conservationist rationalization/justification, until I began to seriously consider the premise. Do we have the right to take another animals' only life for our personal pleasure and self-esteem? Look at how many species have disappeared with the proliferation of the human species. We are in the midst another mass extinction event of historic proportions, primarily due to human activities.

What? The premise you just asserted is a patently false one. Who said anything about hunting and fishing merely for self-esteem? Hunting and fishing is a form of harvest. It is done for human sustenance (and clothing, shelter, etc) and has been done for many thousands of years. Much like the taking of plant life. And regardless, isn't it you who argues from a strictly cold, evolutionary, godless sense? So yes, as the apex predator in your worldview we would have the "right" to consume other species to sustain our own. Every other species does so. Also, you just said we're in the midst of another mass extinction event, and due to human activities. But your use of the word "another" indicates that such events have happened in the past and are simply part of the evolution of our planet. What makes this any different? You don't believe in God because you've elevated humans to god status. Think about it.

---

On the contrary, I believe your premise is the one that is demonstrably false. Hunting and fishing is not a necessary "harvest." It is simply killing for the personal pleasure one gains from it. Think about what you are saying. Humans evolved as essentially herbivores with limited omnivorous tolerance for survivability. We don't have claws to tear apart flesh, we don't' have carnivorous teeth, short intestines and highly acidic enzymes to break down flesh and process it, and raw meat doesn't appeal to us. We were designed to primarily subsist on plant based foods and nutrients. It's only due to our cognition and ability to use tools that has allowed us to cultivate and consume animals on a large scale basis. And, we are now paying the health consequences with atherosclerosis, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, strokes, certain autoimmune disorders, and some forms of cancer. All of which is well documented and published in peer reviewed journals. We can and should survive on essentially plant based foods. Our desire to venture into cooked meats that we have not evolved to adequately digest, is killing many of us early, and is wreaking havoc on other species because of our sheer numbers. Hunting and fishing serves no valid purpose other than personal pleasure and esteem.

Quote:

---

Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the well-being of other species?

Again, your worldview is the one that would suggest "yes." Why wouldn't we (according to you)? There is no bigger meaning. We're only here for a few decades then we're gone. What is this "morality" you're referring to? Is it universal, or is it subjective like you claim meaning is?

---

Here is a definition of morality: a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

Society determines morality. It doesn't stem from some imaginary being, but rather from the recognition of the value in the common good and well-being of all, and the ability to determine what causes harm.

bubbadog said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quash said "Paul knew Greek culture. He knew about homosexuality. The Sacred Band of Thebes predates Paul by centuries."
Paul knew about homosexual behavior not orientation and psychology. Are you making a case that Paul knew about sexual orientation? How is that related to scripture?

---

As I said before, Paul may have been gay according to some. Again, Bishop Spong is one who thought so.

And just because modern psychology began in the 19th century doesn't mean we only began to deal with homosexuality recently.

---

I have not read Spong, but I am familiar with this interpretation. Some people think Paul is talking about homosexuality when he vaguely describes the "thorn in the flesh" that has afflicted him.

But I have also read a lot of other works on Paul. I am well convinced he was not gay. Nor do I believe he was talking about committed, monogamous homosexual relationships in the passages where he attacks homosexual behavior. If you're interested, a worthwhile book that covers this subject is called Paul among the People by Sarah Ruden. She is a scholar of classical Greek and Roman literature and embarked on this book to examine Paul's writings against the prevailing culture; this context is missing from what most Christians learn about Paul and his time, even in very good Bible studies.

One of her chapters is a description of the kinds of homosexual practices that were common in the Greco-Roman world of Paul's day.

Here's a link I found to the Amazon page that has a pretty good synopsis of the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Paul-Among-People-Reinterpreted-Reimagined-ebook/dp/B0036S0F62

---

Thanks for the link, not going to read the book but the reviews and excerpts seem to be making Waco's point that Paul was dealing with, and trying to reform, a first century type of homosexuality that was exploitative.

Waco1947 said:

---

Quash said "Paul knew Greek culture. He knew about homosexuality. The Sacred Band of Thebes predates Paul by centuries."
Paul knew about homosexual behavior not orientation and psychology. Are you making a case that Paul knew about sexual orientation? How is that related to scripture?

---

Not sure if he is, but you made the case that he didn't and have yet to prove it.

bubbadog said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

But most women in the first world choose to use contraception, and most either want to work because they have a vocation or talent for law or teaching or medicine or business, or find they must work at the best job they can get to support themselves and their children, either because one income isn't enough or because they're single, divorced or married to an underemployed or disabled man. Women who must work to support themselves and their families really benefit from having more options and the availability of reliable contraception.

---

It's not JUST because they want a career. Many have no such desire. Yet even women who do not work outside the home depend on contraceptives because they want to be able to plan their families -- when to have children and how many.

Once upon a time, the Catholic Church was able to make a virtue out of what was physical necessity. Families were large because (a) most Americans lived on farms, where more help was needed and (b) there was a good chance that some of the children wouldn't survive into adulthood; if you only had two kids, one bad season of scarlet fever or rubella could leave you with none. After we prevailed over such diseases and after most Americans moved away from depending on agriculture, large families were no longer a necessity; in fact, for many, they could be more of a financial burden than a financial help. Yet the Church insisted that women could not be allowed to plan the size and spacing of their families even if they didn't rely on abortion for that.

I am not in favor of pure abortion on demand. But the conversation for me comes to an end when someone tells me that contraceptives are immoral and are somehow equal to abortion. I just shake my head and shake the dust off my sandals. There's no reasoning with that position.

---

Two good posts in a row! Bravo!

I've agreed with you twice. What is going on?

---

I'm a bit nervous about that myself.

---

It's nice that we can agree on some things.

Waco1947 said:

---

quash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quash said "Paul knew Greek culture. He knew about homosexuality. The Sacred Band of Thebes predates Paul by centuries."
Paul knew about homosexual behavior not orientation and psychology. Are you making a case that Paul knew about sexual orientation? How is that related to scripture?

---

As I said before, Paul may have been gay according to some. Again, Bishop Spong is one who thought so.

And just because modern psychology began in the 19th century doesn't mean we only began to deal with homosexuality recently.

---

I'm not making the point that we only began dealing with homosexuality recently. I am making the point that Paul dealt with in a misguided 1st century way. Many of us Christians are gaining new insights and acceptance of homosexuality because of recent studies on orientation. Paul was addressing a specific time and place with a 1st century understanding. It's all he had. It is inadequate for today's morality.

---

Today's morality? So someday, murder can be okay?

What a dark world you live in.

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.

---

Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.

If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.

Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.

Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

---

I'll try to address a few of these points one at a time:

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

.
"If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live."

I'm not following someone else's definition so much as I'm embracing what I believe to be the truth of the universe. Other people don't define or control my belief, but there are certain people who have tapped into the same truth from whom I can learn. You, on the other hand, are choosing Self. This, according to Christian faith, was the sin of Lucifer before the creation of Earth and the original human sin in the garden. This self-deification is also why I suggest you practice a form of Humanism.

.
"Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning."

Not that it matters, but I think you might be confusing Christian Scientists with Scientologists. Two very different things. Christian Science is a metaphysical religion centered largely around the belief that sickness is an illusion, where as Scientology is a science-fiction cult where you buy your way to the top like Tom Cruise and John Travolta have done.

.
"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."

How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet. I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET. Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.

.
I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law.

Me too. On abortion, I think a really bad interpretation of constitutional law was applied 45 years ago and as a result millions of human beings have been exterminated. That bad law should be changed, and this monstrous practice should be prohibited.


.
"And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions."

You have taken the disingenuous position of claiming that you are a champion of "choice" and "freedom" and therefore think government shouldn't intrude. But you don't feel this about other topics. For example, I assume you aren't pro-choice for rapists, right? They are choosing what to do with their bodies, and in so doing are violating the body of another person and visiting violence upon them. This same thing happens with abortion. You believe we should "impose with the force of law" a prohibition against rape. I believe we should do the same when it comes to killing the most defenseless human beings among us.

.
And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution.

I don't know a single Christian person who opposed a gay person having equal "civil rights like marriage." Most of us think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way. We view it as a sacred relationship, not a governmental one. As such, I don't oppose gay people entering into a lifelong committed relationship and having the exact same rights I would have for being in one that I call "marriage." I object to them calling it "marriage" for the same reason I object to calling a three-sided object a rectangle. It simply isn't what it is. But I don't think they should have less rights than those who do enter a marriage.

.
Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight.

Huh? Nobody (none that I know, anyway) believes this should be mandated somehow by government. That's crazy. Christians don't want a theocracy. They hold the views you described when it comes to their personal view on sin, but certainly not the law. I think it's a sin to tell a lie, to commit adultery, to covet your neighbors stuff, etc . . .but I don't think this has anything to do with law or government. I don't think there should be laws against those things and I don't think there should be against homosexuality. This isn't a civil rights issue. Not sure what you're talking about on this point with regard to "force of law."

---

• I couldn't help but comment on a couple of remarks. My remarks are by bullet points in italics.

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

• There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value.

"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."

How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet.

• Many people of religious faith, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise seem to believe that there is no need to be good stewards of what we have on this planet. They rather believe that god gave us dominion over it and we can do whatever want without regard, because he's in control and everything happens according to his plan. Many espouse apocalyptic views that negate the need to care for the future.

I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET.

• I used to hunt, fish and believe/embrace the conservationist rationalization/justification, until I began to seriously consider the premise. Do we have the right to take another animals only life for our personal pleasure and self esteem? Look how many species have disappeared with the proliferation of the human species. We are in the midst another mass extinction event of historic proportions, primarily due to human activities.

Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.

• Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the wellbeing of other species?

---

"There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value. "

Why? Why does all life deserve respect, care, and value? What is the basis for this assertion? If there is no meaning to life, and we are just one of millions of species and here by complete accident . . .where does this notion of "respect" and "good", etc, come from, and why are we compelled to carry it out?


I used to hunt, fish and believe/embrace the conservationist rationalization/justification, until I began to seriously consider the premise. Do we have the right to take another animals only life for our personal pleasure and self esteem? Look how many species have disappeared with the proliferation of the human species. We are in the midst another mass extinction event of historic proportions, primarily due to human activities.

What? The premise you just asserted is a patently false one. Who said anything about hunting and fishing merely for self esteem? Hunting and fishing is a form of harvest. It is done for human sustenance (and clothing, shelter, etc) and has been done for many thousands of years. Much like the taking of plant life. And regardless, isn't it you who argues from a strictly cold, evolutionary, godless sense? So yes, as the apex predator in your worldview we would have the "right" to consume other species to sustain our own. Every other species does so. Also, you just said we're in the midst of another mass extinction event, and due to human activities. But your use of the word "another" indicates that such events have happened in the past and are simply part of the evolution of our planet. What makes this any different? You don't believe in God because you've elevated humans to god status. Think about it.


Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the wellbeing of other species?

Again, your worldview is the one that would suggest "yes." Why wouldn't we (according to you)? There is no bigger meaning. We're only here for a few decades then we're gone. What is this "morality" you're referring to? Is it universal, or is it subjective like you claim meaning is?

---

Quote:

---

"There is no meaning to life in general. The only meaning to life is what we as a species assign to it. That is why it is incumbent that we, as a species with higher intellect, capable of complex thought and reasoning, should respect all forms of life, behave responsibly, and use our intellect to make this planet a better place for all species. Life is unique and somewhat rare. As such, all life deserves respect, care and value. "

Why? Why does all life deserve respect, care, and value? What is the basis for this assertion? If there is no meaning to life, and we are just one of millions of species and here by complete accident . . .where does this notion of "respect" and "good", etc, come from, and why are we compelled to carry it out?

---

Because we, as a more advanced evolutionary form of life, have cognitive reasoning skills that are inherent to our species. Our cognition can impact either positively or negatively all species especially those of lesser cognition. As such, our good fortune should impose a duty of reasonable care and responsibility for the wellbeing of all species. Our decisions not only impact us, but all species on this planet. Biodiversity and speciation is critical to a viable ecosystem which is sustainable to life. We are all interdependent on diverse speciation. We need look no further than Mars, which once had an atmosphere analogous to ours that may have been supportive of some forms of life. For various reasons, some known and others unknown, that atmosphere no longer exists. It is a next door neighbor example that planetary environments can change, and change fairly rapidly. The notion of respect and good arises from recognition of commonality and interdependence on each other (all species) for survival, and understanding of the unique position we are in as living entities in a universe that is mostly inhospitable. Why would you want to harm any being without cause?

Quote:

---

I used to hunt, fish and believe/embrace the conservationist rationalization/justification, until I began to seriously consider the premise. Do we have the right to take another animals' only life for our personal pleasure and self-esteem? Look at how many species have disappeared with the proliferation of the human species. We are in the midst another mass extinction event of historic proportions, primarily due to human activities.

What? The premise you just asserted is a patently false one. Who said anything about hunting and fishing merely for self-esteem? Hunting and fishing is a form of harvest. It is done for human sustenance (and clothing, shelter, etc) and has been done for many thousands of years. Much like the taking of plant life. And regardless, isn't it you who argues from a strictly cold, evolutionary, godless sense? So yes, as the apex predator in your worldview we would have the "right" to consume other species to sustain our own. Every other species does so. Also, you just said we're in the midst of another mass extinction event, and due to human activities. But your use of the word "another" indicates that such events have happened in the past and are simply part of the evolution of our planet. What makes this any different? You don't believe in God because you've elevated humans to god status. Think about it.

---

On the contrary, I believe your premise is the one that is demonstrably false. Hunting and fishing is not a necessary "harvest." It is simply killing for the personal pleasure one gains from it. Think about what you are saying.


We don't have claws to tear apart flesh, we don't' have carnivorous teeth, short intestines and highly acidic enzymes to break down flesh and process it, and raw meat doesn't appeal to us. We were designed to primarily subsist on plant based foods and nutrients. It's only due to our cognition and ability to use tools that has allowed us to cultivate and consume animals on a large scale basis. And, we are now paying the health consequences with atherosclerosis, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, strokes, certain autoimmune disorders, and some forms of cancer. All of which is well documented and published in peer reviewed journals. We can and should survive on essentially plant based foods. Our desire to venture into cooked meats that we have not evolved to adequately digest, is killing many of us early, and is wreaking havoc on other species because of our sheer numbers. Hunting and fishing serves no valid purpose other than personal pleasure and esteem.

Quote:

---

Do we really have a moral right to do whatever pleases us without regard for the well-being of other species?

Again, your worldview is the one that would suggest "yes." Why wouldn't we (according to you)? There is no bigger meaning. We're only here for a few decades then we're gone. What is this "morality" you're referring to? Is it universal, or is it subjective like you claim meaning is?

---

Here is a definition of morality: a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

Society determines morality. It doesn't stem from some imaginary being, but rather from the recognition of the value in the common good and well-being of all, and the ability to determine what causes harm.

---

"As such, our good fortune should impose a duty of reasonable care and responsibility for the wellbeing of all species"

What is this "should" you keep talking about? Where is this notion of "should" or "ought" coming from? You seem to accidentally keep referring to a basis of some universal law or truth . . .which is, of course, antithetical to your stated belief. From where are you drawing this notion of "should?" And why should it apply to all people?


"Humans evolved as essentially herbivores with limited omnivorous tolerance for survivability."

The benefits of a vegan diet for today's humans is a debatable topic, but this is sentence is simply false. We didn't evolve as herbivores. See this article from Time which cites to a study by Nature and debunks this thinking. http://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/


"Society determines morality."

What's sad to me is that I know you don't actually believe this. You tip your hand every time you refer to this notion of "ought." If you truly believed society determined morality, then you would think that slavery in America was a moral practice. But you don't. You think we "ought not" have been doing that. You know, deep inside, that there is a higher moral authority that supersedes the whims of a given time or society. You know that some things are evil, no matter what a particular society may feel about it at the time. But you don't want to admit this because it creates problems for the worldview you have crafted for yourself. Brings to mind a great book, The Abolition of Man.

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Women's cycles vary. Some women have predictable cycles; others never do. If the five-day window you mention were totally predictable for all women, we would have very few "unplanned" pregnancies. The fact is, some women have irregular cycles, and their fertile periods are very hard to predict. Some women ovulate more than one egg; I had a work colleague whose first pregnancy was fraternal triplets--2 girls and a boy who was crushed to death in the womb. She spent half that pregnancy in bed, and was informed that all of her pregnancies were likely to be multiple and dangerous. She got her tubes tied. Your one-size-fits-all scenario may fit religious guidelines, but not real women.

---

Their are doctors that are educated on how to help women avoid these types of surgeries. Sadly, it's too easy for them to schedule a tubal ligation or stick a woman on the pill as a panacea.

Jinx 2 said:

---

The Guttmacher Institute says that "Couple who do not use any method of contraception have approximately an 85% chance of experiencing a pregnancy in a given year." https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states

---

I don't doubt their findings; however, NFP is different than just "unprotected" sex. It works in concert with a woman's body. It's proven to be approximately 98-99% effective in "controlling" pregnancy.

Would you agree that this is healthier for a woman than many other forms of contraception?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Avoiding a woman's fertile period also requires discipline from both couples. Women have not always been able to force that disicpline upon their husbands. Jewish law enforced a version of that discipline, but the period of time during which a woman is "unclean" and thus not available for sex is much longer, and hard to figure out. If you really want your eyes to cross, read this: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-laws-of-niddah/

---

The Jewish article in interesting. I'm glad that I'm not an Orthodox jew. Having said that, NFP guidelines are much easier to follow. A simple checking of the natural secretions and/or temp check and daily charting is not that inconvenient. Even in the husband doesn't engage in this process, a wife should inform the husband of her fertile periods. Study after study on NFP has shown that this has improved their relationships and enhanced their intimacy.

The divorce rate for couples that use NFP is less than 5%. For contracepting couples, 50%.

---

Quote:

---

The divorce rate for couples that use NFP is less than 5%. For contracepting couples, 50%.

---

How about - It's much more likely that couples that use NFP are members of a religious cult that forbids divorce?

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

---

Fad don't be obtuse. People knew about all kinds of behaviors, diseases but did not how to process it. Mental illness was thought to be evil spirits and treated accordingly. Likewise with homosexuality. God help you. You are so twisted up with ignorance of homosexuality that you're not thinking straight. Be a little objective. .

---

So did you learn how to twist the Bible to your needs in seminary or is that something you learned on your own?

and again, where are your references for this?

---

Dod you learn to answer arguments or just fling nonsense? Again I ask why beat up on gays because Paul had no clue about homosexuality as an orientation?

---

Again, for the third time, where's your evidence?

---

Most Evangelical or SBC churches are so afraid that they read it and simply go in hearsay. But the evangelical and orthodox Christian View of homosexuality is out of date and clinging to a gross distortion and interpretation of Paul.

---

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.


Waco 47, it seems that Paul has a great amount of understanding about what the issue. Not wanting natural relationships men turn to lust for men and women for women. I will go on record as saying, Paul has a very solid understanding of the lust involved in same sex attraction, otoh you are calling what is a sin, natural and even sacred, if you consider it the basis for marriage.

The issue is, you won't accept that men with men, or women with women is 1) against nature. 2)a vile passion 3) lust 4) shameful. In other words, it is sin.

We all struggle with sin, I'm sure as vile to God as any other sin. When you try to "normalize" a sin though, then you hurt the person committing the sin. Why struggle against it, if you are convinced it's natural or even sacred.

Also you mischaracterize how christians look at folks who struggle with same sex desires. Of course they can believe, of course they can be saved, of course they can still struggle with this area of sin after they come to believe in Christ, we ALL struggle with sin after we believe in Christ, only a perfect person would not. There is no perfect person, aside from Christ.

TexasScientist said:

---

How about - It's much more likely that couples that use NFP are members of a religious cult that forbids divorce?

---

TS - Your question is a valid one; however, studies show that those who practice NFP and are not members of a "religious cult" still experience the same low divorce rate.

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Women's cycles vary. Some women have predictable cycles; others never do. If the five-day window you mention were totally predictable for all women, we would have very few "unplanned" pregnancies. The fact is, some women have irregular cycles, and their fertile periods are very hard to predict. Some women ovulate more than one egg; I had a work colleague whose first pregnancy was fraternal triplets--2 girls and a boy who was crushed to death in the womb. She spent half that pregnancy in bed, and was informed that all of her pregnancies were likely to be multiple and dangerous. She got her tubes tied. Your one-size-fits-all scenario may fit religious guidelines, but not real women.

---

Their are doctors that are educated on how to help women avoid these types of surgeries. Sadly, it's too easy for them to schedule a tubal ligation or stick a woman on the pill as a panacea.

Jinx 2 said:

---

The Guttmacher Institute says that "Couple who do not use any method of contraception have approximately an 85% chance of experiencing a pregnancy in a given year." https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states

---

I don't doubt their findings; however, NFP is different than just "unprotected" sex. It works in concert with a woman's body. It's proven to be approximately 98-99% effective in "controlling" pregnancy.

Would you agree that this is healthier for a woman than many other forms of contraception?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Avoiding a woman's fertile period also requires discipline from both couples. Women have not always been able to force that disicpline upon their husbands. Jewish law enforced a version of that discipline, but the period of time during which a woman is "unclean" and thus not available for sex is much longer, and hard to figure out. If you really want your eyes to cross, read this: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-laws-of-niddah/

---

The Jewish article in interesting. I'm glad that I'm not an Orthodox jew. Having said that, NFP guidelines are much easier to follow. A simple checking of the natural secretions and/or temp check and daily charting is not that inconvenient. Even in the husband doesn't engage in this process, a wife should inform the husband of her fertile periods. Study after study on NFP has shown that this has improved their relationships and enhanced their intimacy.

The divorce rate for couples that use NFP is less than 5%. For contracepting couples, 50%.

---

You're talking to a woman who was raised in the protestant tradition by a mother who used contraception not to prevent pregnancy, but to time pregnancies so she and my father could afford to send the 4 children they originally planned to have through college. My mother was one of six siblings, and her family was too poor to send her to college, so she was determined all of her children would go. My brother is 3 years older than me; my younger brother 5 years younger; they'd planned to wait another 3 or 4 years and have a 4th sibling, but they stopped with him because his profound handicaps made it impossible for my mother to have another baby and meet his care needs. After his birth, preventing another pregnancy became the goal, because neither of them had the physical or financial resources to care for my brother during a pregnancy and while caring for a new baby.

There are as many reasons why women and couples use more reliable forms of contraception than NFP--which is not really contraception but rather an effort to avoid sex when the woman is fertile--as there are life circumstances.

So when you say "Would you agree that [NFP] is healthier for a woman than many other forms of contraception?" my answer is: Hell, no. Using NFP is like playing Russian roulette with the woman's body, with a pregnancy always possible--which is why the Catholic church supports it. I honestly can't imagine a bigger disincentive to sex than that, and I'm continually surprised that so many women either knowingly risk unprotected sex or let themselves be persuaded or, in the case of teenagers, believe myths like "You can't get pregnant the first time."