Gay And Interracial Marriage

[havok579257]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='08 August 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1281307436' post='2154308']
I know that the Church position on gays, pedos and bestiality is that they are all bad sins, but you cant really compare gay marriage to child molestation. certainly not legally. Two gay guys marrying is an act between two consenting legal adults. Children are not adults, obviously and as such cannot consent to a sexual relationship. same thing with the farmyard romancing. it just aint the same.
[/quote]


he does make a legit point about beasteality and child molestation.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='08 August 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1281307436' post='2154308']
I know that the Church position on gays, pedos and bestiality is that they are all bad sins, but you cant really compare gay marriage to child molestation. certainly not legally. Two gay guys marrying is an act between two consenting legal adults. Children are not adults, obviously and as such cannot consent to a sexual relationship. same thing with the farmyard romancing. it just aint the same.
[/quote]


No to sins are equal. In that you are correct. But
On what basis do you say they cannot? On what basis do you say it would be wrong since they cannot make these decisions. Your missing the point.

[lookingforfaith]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='08 August 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1281307436' post='2154308']
I know that the Church position on gays, pedos and bestiality is that they are all bad sins, but you cant really compare gay marriage to child molestation. certainly not legally. Two gay guys marrying is an act between two consenting legal adults. Children are not adults, obviously and as such cannot consent to a sexual relationship. same thing with the farmyard romancing. it just aint the same.
[/quote]


100% correct. Legally you simply cannot compare the two.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='08 August 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1281306408' post='2154305']
Polygamy is going to be the next thing here, and I'm not talking about the uber-Mormans out in BC. Immigration Canada has already allowed refugees with more than one wife. That makes them quasi-legal.
[/quote]
Plus didn't the government in BC just refuse to hear the case against one of those guys with lots of wives? Middle of last year I believe it was.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 August 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1281315635' post='2154388']
Plus didn't the government in BC just refuse to hear the case against one of those guys with lots of wives? Middle of last year I believe it was.
[/quote]
There's a big difference between refusing to pursue a criminal case against someone and legally recognizing that a man can have two wives. Immigration laws are clear that you can only sponsor one spouse at a time. If my husband had divorced me the day after he signed my sponsorship, he would not have been allowed to sponsor another spouse until the sponsorship time of 3 years had ended. For refugees though, they are deemed to be in a dangerous situation, and the government doesn't want to be seen as making someone choose between their lives and one of their wives. Especially when the multiple wives are deemed to be part of their religious freedom.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='lookingforfaith' date='08 August 2010 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1281314865' post='2154381']
100% correct. Legally you simply cannot compare the two.
[/quote]


But his assumptions go beyond legal. He clearly implies that one is worse than the other. On what basis? Legal? No, the implication is a moral basis. Otherwise if man is just the result of a 4 billion old series of physical and chemical reactions there is no real basis for anything.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='08 August 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1281314524' post='2154376']
No to sins are equal. In that you are correct. But
On what basis do you say they cannot? On what basis do you say it would be wrong since they cannot make these decisions. Your missing the point.
[/quote]

your post could use a bit more editing, its somewhat confusing to read. if you are asking why it would be wrong because the kids/animals cant make the decisions, well simply put, because that makes any sex act involving them rape. that is why it is legally wrong. morally, for a whole lot more reasons.

[quote name='lookingforfaith' date='08 August 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1281314865' post='2154381']
100% correct. Legally you simply cannot compare the two.
[/quote]

thanks

[quote name='thessalonian' date='08 August 2010 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1281319551' post='2154427']
But his assumptions go beyond legal. He clearly implies that one is worse than the other. On what basis? Legal? No, the implication is a moral basis. Otherwise if man is just the result of a 4 billion old series of physical and chemical reactions there is no real basis for anything.
[/quote]

you are right, i did not imply it in a legal sense. I said it straight forwardly. Legally, child molestation/bestiality and gay sex are on two completely different levels. the first two are wrong in every way. The third, even if you believe homosexual acts to be inherently immoral, is not as bad. simple enough.

your last sentence doesnt really jive with the church's position on homosexuality being based on the self evident natural law.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='08 August 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1281314524' post='2154376']
No to sins are equal. In that you are correct. But
On what basis do you say they cannot? On what basis do you say it would be wrong since they cannot make these decisions. Your missing the point.
[/quote]

your post could use a bit more editing, its somewhat confusing to read. if you are asking why it would be wrong because the kids/animals cant make the decisions, well simply put, because that makes any sex act involving them rape. that is why it is legally wrong. morally, for a whole lot more reasons.

[quote name='lookingforfaith' date='08 August 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1281314865' post='2154381']
100% correct. Legally you simply cannot compare the two.
[/quote]

thanks

[quote name='thessalonian' date='08 August 2010 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1281319551' post='2154427']
But his assumptions go beyond legal. He clearly implies that one is worse than the other. On what basis? Legal? No, the implication is a moral basis. Otherwise if man is just the result of a 4 billion old series of physical and chemical reactions there is no real basis for anything.
[/quote]

you are right, i did not imply it in a legal sense. I said it straight forwardly. Legally, child molestation/bestiality and gay sex are on two completely different levels. the first two are wrong in every way. The third, even if you believe homosexual acts to be inherently immoral, is not as bad. simple enough.

your last sentence doesnt really jive with the church's position on homosexuality being based on the self evident natural law.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='08 August 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1281307436' post='2154308']
I know that the Church position on gays, pedos and bestiality is that they are all bad sins, but you cant really compare gay marriage to child molestation. certainly not legally. Two gay guys marrying is an act between two consenting legal adults. Children are not adults, obviously and as such cannot consent to a sexual relationship. same thing with the farmyard romancing. it just aint the same.
[/quote]


[quote name='havok579257' date='08 August 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1281308831' post='2154321']
he does make a legit point about beasteality and child molestation.
[/quote]


[quote name='lookingforfaith' date='08 August 2010 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1281314865' post='2154381']
100% correct. Legally you simply cannot compare the two.
[/quote]
Unless you're going to take an extreme "animal rights" "vegan" stance, you can't really consistently argue that bestiality should be illegal based on the animal's inability to legally consent to sexual activity. Animals don't consent to being killed and eaten either. We legally do lots of things to animals that they do not (and cannot) consent to.
And even some in the "animal rights" crowd have argued for bestiality as long as no animals are harmed (including, infamously, Peter Singer, "the father of the animal rights movement").

Laws against bestiality are rooted in morality, not matters of legal consent.

There are in fact movements for the legalization and acceptance of both pedophilia and bestiality, which use a lot of the same rhetoric as the "gay rights" movement.

Those who want to remove any moral considerations from the law often refuse to acknowledge the often unsavory logical conclusions of that line of thought.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' date='09 August 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1281378560' post='2154728']
Unless you're going to take an extreme "animal rights" "vegan" stance, you can't really consistently argue that bestiality should be illegal based on the animal's inability to legally consent to sexual activity. Animals don't consent to being killed and eaten either. We legally do lots of things to animals that they do not (and cannot) consent to.
And even some in the "animal rights" crowd have argued for bestiality as long as no animals are harmed (including, infamously, Peter Singer, "the father of the animal rights movement").

Laws against bestiality are rooted in morality, not matters of legal consent.

There are in fact movements for the legalization and acceptance of both pedophilia and bestiality, which use a lot of the same rhetoric as the "gay rights" movement.

Those who want to remove any moral considerations from the law often refuse to acknowledge the often unsavory logical conclusions of that line of thought.
[/quote]

Have you seen the recent video taken inside a beef cow factory, where the employees were viciously beating the animals? starving them etc? its called "cruelty to animals" and it is illegal. and immoral. how is raping an animal not the equal of beating it? generally sexual assault is considered worse than battery/assault.

There are in fact movements for a whole lot of disgusting things, and though they often borrow rhetoric from other movements, that does not illegitimize the movements they borrow from.
A lot of american racist organizations borrow heavily from conservative rhetoric, does that make conservatives bad? or equal to these other movements?

and i wasnt arguing that morals should be utterly removed from law.

None of what you said puts pedophilia/bestiality on the same playing field as gay rights. the fact remains that in a legal sense they cannot be closely compared. Neither in a moral sense.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='09 August 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1281395654' post='2154897']
Have you seen the recent video taken inside a beef cow factory, where the employees were viciously beating the animals? starving them etc? its called "cruelty to animals" and it is illegal. and immoral. how is raping an animal not the equal of beating it? generally sexual assault is considered worse than battery/assault.

There are in fact movements for a whole lot of disgusting things, and though they often borrow rhetoric from other movements, that does not illegitimize the movements they borrow from.
A lot of american racist organizations borrow heavily from conservative rhetoric, does that make conservatives bad? or equal to these other movements?

and i wasnt arguing that morals should be utterly removed from law.

None of what you said puts pedophilia/bestiality on the same playing field as gay rights. the fact remains that in a legal sense they cannot be closely compared. Neither in a moral sense.
[/quote]
This is getting into disgusting territory, but the claim is generally made that the animal to all appearances enjoys the act and "consents" to or even initiates it. It's a bit hard to objectively prove otherwise.

It's considered a crime to butcher a kid, and serve him up as hamburgers, regardless of how "humanely" the slaughter is carried out, so you really can't compare to laws regarding human beings, or use the "consent" rationale, unless you're a vegan.

The basis against bestiality is primarily moral in nature - that it is a monstrous act contrary to nature - not because the animal does not consent (otherwise, keeping animals in captivity, or killing them, for any purpose would be illegal).

In many places, there were laws against homosexual activity for the same reason (both were traditionally regarded as forms of sodomy).

If you remove moral considerations from legal matters, everything becomes purely subjective - whatever "floats your boat."

While recognizing bestial "marriages" may be a stretch, there is no reason for awarding homosexual "unions" the same benefits and recognition as marriage between man and woman. The reason such marriage is recognized, is that it is the basis for procreation and the family, which various forms of unnatural sexual activity are not. This is the point of marriage - not just two people having fun together. There's no point in awarding benefits to sexual activity for its own sake.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='09 August 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1281395654' post='2154897']
Have you seen the recent video taken inside a beef cow factory, where the employees were viciously beating the animals? starving them etc? its called "cruelty to animals" and it is illegal. and immoral. how is raping an animal ...[/quote]So what if the animal really likes you?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 August 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1281551483' post='2155883']
So what if the animal really likes you?
[/quote]
I've never seen a post to which I could relpy with so many grossly inappropiate and banable responses.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hassan' date='11 August 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1281579567' post='2156288']
I've never seen a post to which I could relpy with so many grossly inappropiate and banable responses.
[/quote]
You're welcome.

[MithLuin]

[b]Jesus_lol[/b], the concept of 'consenting adults' is modern, secular and legal. Marriage has traditionally been the way of keeping track of who has given such 'consent' - the consent had to be very public and binding before it was recognized by the community.

In other words, the Church is not going to recognize a gay couple as 'consenting adults' because all that means is that they are both guilty of the sin (whereas a victim of child rape would of course [i]not[/i] be guilty.)

An argument was even made during the Middle Ages that sodomy was a more serious sin than bestiality, because in the case of sodomy, the other person was being led into sin, whereas in bestiality..well, it's not like the animal could commit a sin.

Interracial marriage was extremely taboo in the US in the early 1900s, of course, but I'm not sure if it's ever really been considered a sin by the Church. Meaning, it's a marriage of a man and a woman, who have freely given their consent and promised to raise their children....even if said children were very likely to face persecution and the couple themselves may have found it difficult to plan the wedding.

There's a difference between a socially undesirable marriage and a relationship that is not a marriage. Regardless of what the law of the land is, the Church is not going to recognize any sort of union between people of the same sex as marriage.