Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2016, 11:03:42 am »
There are Christian scholars who know far more about the Bible and the relevant history than you do who do not share your view that the Bible or Jesus condemned committed same-sex sexual relationships. You are entitled to your view, but you don't get to just ignore the views of those who disagree with you and call your own view the Christian view.
This is not a sensible argument, Soren.  Heck, it can just as easily be turned back on you: There are Christian scholars who know far more about the Bible and the relevant history than you do who do not share your view that the Bible or Jesus condone same-sex sexual relationships.  You are entitled to your view, but you don't get to just ignore the views of those who disagree with you and call your own view the Christian view.

So a much better approach is to weigh arguments on both sides and then make a conclusion.  This is more edifying and helpful than just saying "I can cite experts who disagree with your experts!"
This is exactly why I never said my view was the Christian view. I was simply saying there is no one Christian view -- Christians are split. I think that is an important point to make because this forum generally (though not exclusively) represents a certain slice of Christian thought and sometimes people conflate that with "the" Christian view, as if there were no disagreement within Christianity.

1

Hawke123

  • ***
  • 2415 Posts
  • So much to learn so little time
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2016, 11:41:37 am »
There are Christian scholars who know far more about the Bible and the relevant history than you do who do not share your view that the Bible or Jesus condemned committed same-sex sexual relationships. You are entitled to your view, but you don't get to just ignore the views of those who disagree with you and call your own view the Christian view.
This is not a sensible argument, Soren.  Heck, it can just as easily be turned back on you: There are Christian scholars who know far more about the Bible and the relevant history than you do who do not share your view that the Bible or Jesus condone same-sex sexual relationships.  You are entitled to your view, but you don't get to just ignore the views of those who disagree with you and call your own view the Christian view.

So a much better approach is to weigh arguments on both sides and then make a conclusion.  This is more edifying and helpful than just saying "I can cite experts who disagree with your experts!"
This is exactly why I never said my view was the Christian view. I was simply saying there is no one Christian view -- Christians are split. I think that is an important point to make because this forum generally (though not exclusively) represents a certain slice of Christian thought and sometimes people conflate that with "the" Christian view, as if there were no disagreement within Christianity.
Once again, authentic Christian teaching regarding homosexual behavior is not ultimately decided upon by individuals or groups of Christians 2000 years after the the ascent of Jesus.  It is decided by scripture and the witness of the early church.  So it doesn't mean one whit that some Christians today decide to give the ok to same-sex marriage or swinging or orgies or whatever.
"A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge." -- Tyrion Lannister

“It is always so much easier to attack someone else's position than to create and defend your own.” – Glenn Miller

2

Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2016, 11:56:53 am »
There are Christian scholars who know far more about the Bible and the relevant history than you do who do not share your view that the Bible or Jesus condemned committed same-sex sexual relationships. You are entitled to your view, but you don't get to just ignore the views of those who disagree with you and call your own view the Christian view.
This is not a sensible argument, Soren.  Heck, it can just as easily be turned back on you: There are Christian scholars who know far more about the Bible and the relevant history than you do who do not share your view that the Bible or Jesus condone same-sex sexual relationships.  You are entitled to your view, but you don't get to just ignore the views of those who disagree with you and call your own view the Christian view.

So a much better approach is to weigh arguments on both sides and then make a conclusion.  This is more edifying and helpful than just saying "I can cite experts who disagree with your experts!"
This is exactly why I never said my view was the Christian view. I was simply saying there is no one Christian view -- Christians are split. I think that is an important point to make because this forum generally (though not exclusively) represents a certain slice of Christian thought and sometimes people conflate that with "the" Christian view, as if there were no disagreement within Christianity.
Once again, authentic Christian teaching regarding homosexual behavior is not ultimately decided upon by individuals or groups of Christians 2000 years after the the ascent of Jesus.  It is decided by scripture and the witness of the early church.  So it doesn't mean one whit that some Christians today decide to give the ok to same-sex marriage or swinging or orgies or whatever.
Other knowledgeable Christians have found, for example, that the biblical references to homosexuality were not meant to refer to the sort of monogamous, committed relationship that characterizes same-sex marriage. It is also possible that Paul had a blind spot when it came to same-sex committed relationships -- he was, after all, a fallible human being who may have been biased by attitudes and prejudices of his time that had nothing to do with Jesus' core message. One can be Christian, one can accept the salvation of Jesus, and still believe that the human beings who strove to understand the divine through the documents complied in the Bible made mistakes and incorporated some of their own prejudices.

You don't have to agree with this -- you just have to recognize that the conservative wing of Christianity does not have a monopoly on deciding what the "Christian" view is.

3

Hawke123

  • ***
  • 2415 Posts
  • So much to learn so little time
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2016, 01:26:36 pm »
Other knowledgeable Christians have found, for example, that the biblical references to homosexuality were not meant to refer to the sort of monogamous, committed relationship that characterizes same-sex marriage.
I recently addressed this objection here.

Quote
It is also possible that Paul had a blind spot when it came to same-sex committed relationships -- he was, after all, a fallible human being who may have been biased by attitudes and prejudices of his time that had nothing to do with Jesus' core message. One can be Christian, one can accept the salvation of Jesus, and still believe that the human beings who strove to understand the divine through the documents complied in the Bible made mistakes and incorporated some of their own prejudices.
Ontologically, this is possible.  However, epistemically, a Christian cannot reasonably affirm this as being the case.  Paul, the other authors of scripture, and the early church members were all much, much closer to the life of Jesus and the events that took place in the next few decades after his death and resurrection.  They are in a far superior position to know the authentic gospel than we are, since we are looking back at these events 2000 years after Jesus walked the earth.  None of us walked, talked, ate with him, spoke to any witnesses of Jesus, or lived during that time and place.  So it isn't arbitrary authoritarianism when we Christians adamantly insist that scripture and the early church have the final authority on what is theological truth.  Sure, you can always entertain a hypothetical about the biblical and ecclesial witnesses being wrong, but Christianity literally has no epistemic meter beyond them to demonstrate such a claim.  Theology is not a buffet where everyone gets to pick and choose what to believe based only upon their own personal preferences.  Theology, in order to be sensible, must be systematic, coherent, and take seriously its own epistemic limitations.  And theology that advocates same-sex relationships is overstepping those epistemic limitations when it claims to know something that neither the biblical authors nor the early church knew.

Quote
You don't have to agree with this -- you just have to recognize that the conservative wing of Christianity does not have a monopoly on deciding what the "Christian" view is.
You're exactly right.  Only scripture and the early church can decide that.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 02:03:44 pm by Hawke123 »
"A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge." -- Tyrion Lannister

“It is always so much easier to attack someone else's position than to create and defend your own.” – Glenn Miller

4

Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2016, 05:34:40 pm »
Other knowledgeable Christians have found, for example, that the biblical references to homosexuality were not meant to refer to the sort of monogamous, committed relationship that characterizes same-sex marriage.
I recently addressed this objection here.

Quote
It is also possible that Paul had a blind spot when it came to same-sex committed relationships -- he was, after all, a fallible human being who may have been biased by attitudes and prejudices of his time that had nothing to do with Jesus' core message. One can be Christian, one can accept the salvation of Jesus, and still believe that the human beings who strove to understand the divine through the documents complied in the Bible made mistakes and incorporated some of their own prejudices.
Ontologically, this is possible.  However, epistemically, a Christian cannot reasonably affirm this as being the case.  Paul, the other authors of scripture, and the early church members were all much, much closer to the life of Jesus and the events that took place in the next few decades after his death and resurrection.  They are in a far superior position to know the authentic gospel than we are, since we are looking back at these events 2000 years after Jesus walked the earth.  None of us walked, talked, ate with him, spoke to any witnesses of Jesus, or lived during that time and place.  So it isn't arbitrary authoritarianism when we Christians adamantly insist that scripture and the early church have the final authority on what is theological truth.  Sure, you can always entertain a hypothetical about the biblical and ecclesial witnesses being wrong, but Christianity literally has no epistemic meter beyond them to demonstrate such a claim.  Theology is not a buffet where everyone gets to pick and choose what to believe based only upon their own personal preferences.  Theology, in order to be sensible, must be systematic, coherent, and take seriously its own epistemic limitations.  And theology that advocates same-sex relationships is overstepping those epistemic limitations when it claims to know something that neither the biblical authors nor the early church knew.
Thanks -- very interesting and thoughtful. Three quick notes. First on your point in the other thread about "one another," that is preceded by "burned with lust." I don't think most people would describe marriage-like committed relationships using those words; they might talk about an attraction, or a passion, but usually lust is reserved for a situation where raw physical impulse is the sole or the overwhelmingly element. Thus (assuming the English translation you gave reflects the original accurately), I think you could read that as not being applicable to a true complete love of another person the way you or I would love our wives and the way gay men would love their husbands.

Second, as a Christian I think you could perhaps justifiably doubt some of the claims by human authors of the Bible if they conflict with the core message of Jesus. I have seen up close several loving same-sex marriages and loving families headed by same-sex couples, and I do not believe that God as understood by Christians would have created people to desire these wonderful situations if they were sinful. This is different from, say, someone drawn to have sex with children where the harm and lack of consent is evident -- with same-sex relationships, you have good people drawn to each other, who then create amazing families with thriving children, and yet you ask us to believe that sin is at the root of all this. I am still working through the right words, so forgive me if I am inarticulate here, but I hope my main point comes across.

Finally, Paul did not know Jesus, at least before Jesus' death. And Paul speaks in the Bible about learning Jesus' message not from other people who knew Jesus but from his own revelation, although Paul did eventually speak with some of the apostles. So it seems plausible that Paul might have interpolated some of his own beliefs into his message, either knowingly or unknowingly.

Anyway, again, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

5

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28422 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2016, 04:42:40 am »
Soren,

''Finally, Paul did not know Jesus, at least before Jesus' death. And Paul speaks in the Bible about learning Jesus' message not from other people who knew Jesus but from his own revelation, although Paul did eventually speak with some of the apostles. So it seems plausible that Paul might have interpolated some of his own beliefs into his message, either knowingly or unknowingly.''

If Paul's views on homosexuality were incorrect, then the apostles would have rebuked Paul's views. The apostles did not rebuke Paul's views on homosexuality, which gives us reason to think that Paul's views are in accordance with Jesus' message and the apostles' understanding.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

6

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28422 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2016, 05:37:59 am »
Soren,

''I do not believe that God as understood by Christians would have created people to desire these wonderful situations if they were sinful.''

God does not create sinful desires in people. Desire and sin, although related, are not the same.

Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
James 1:15.

Desire is not sin. Desire, when put into action, can lead to sin. Sin leads to death. God neither creates sinful desires nor makes us to act on those desires. We are responsible for our actions.

There is pleasure in sin, 2 Thess. 2:12, Heb. 11:25. Many people today have a utilitarian view of morality and they think that homosexual acts are not sinful based on the temporary pleasures it gives them. If it doesn't hurt you, then it must be good. But the Bible acknowledges that sin feels good, for a season. That is why Christians ought not base right and wrong on what feels good.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2016, 06:00:02 am by Trinity »
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

7

Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2016, 07:25:08 am »
Soren,

''I do not believe that God as understood by Christians would have created people to desire these wonderful situations if they were sinful.''

God does not create sinful desires in people. Desire and sin, although related, are not the same.

Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
James 1:15.

Desire is not sin. Desire, when put into action, can lead to sin. Sin leads to death. God neither creates sinful desires nor makes us to act on those desires. We are responsible for our actions.

There is pleasure in sin, 2 Thess. 2:12, Heb. 11:25. Many people today have a utilitarian view of morality and they think that homosexual acts are not sinful based on the temporary pleasures it gives them. If it doesn't hurt you, then it must be good. But the Bible acknowledges that sin feels good, for a season. That is why Christians ought not base right and wrong on what feels good.
What you are saying makes sense if you are talking about, say, excessive drinking or drug use or pedophilia, or even love of money and materialistic things. That really does create a temporary pleasure, and in fact often a decreasing temporary pleasure so that more and more of the activity -- the sin, in Christian terms, the drinking or the enrichment -- is needed even to maintain the same level of temporary pleasure. But if you know people who are in a committed same-sex relationship, a same-sex marriage either legally or in effect, you know that is the very opposite of a temporary pleasure -- it is a soul-fulfilling, soul-deepening experience of joy and beauty in the same way that an opposite-sex marriage is.

The conservative Christian equation of same-sex romantic/sexual relationships with things like excessive drinking or drug use or pedophilia or the like depends on a complete misunderstanding of the nature and effect of same-sex relationships. It depends on pretending that those relationships are "temporary pleasures" like getting drunk or high. That description doesn't work when you are talking about committed same-sex relationships -- you don't see people in same-sex marriages needing more and more sex to maintain the fulfillment they get from the relationship any more than you see that in opposite-sex marriages.

Now, the "temporary pleasure" description could work if you are talking about people who are not gay sleeping with people of the same sex in orgy-type fashion, which is another reason to think that the Biblical injunctions against same-sex relationships are talking about those sorts of casual sex, not about committed same-sex relationships. When Paul talks about people "lusting" for each other, for example, that sounds far more like an orgy than a marriage. So if really stop and think about the Biblical passages dealing with same-sex relationships, the argument that they are not proscribing committed same-sex relationships is pretty strong. 

8

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28422 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2016, 07:53:29 am »
I think that one has to consider the order set up by God for men and women. If God set up an order for men and women to live by, then disorder arises from attempting to change that order. Marriage is the order between the union of a man and a woman, see Matthew 19:4-6. The disorder arises when people attempt to redefine marriage as something other than the union of one man and one woman.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

9

Soren

  • ****
  • 5097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2016, 08:24:13 am »
I think that one has to consider the order set up by God for men and women. If God set up an order for men and women to live by, then disorder arises from attempting to change that order. Marriage is the order between the union of a man and a woman, see Matthew 19:4-6. The disorder arises when people attempt to redefine marriage as something other than the union of one man and one woman.
Note that this is an answer to a very specific question about a man and woman divorcing, so it it not surprising that Jesus talked in terms of men and women. Taken the way you read them, these verses would also mean -- in fact, more naturally mean -- that divorce and remarriage would be a sin, even if in the original marriage the spouses were fighting constantly and the children were suffering horribly. It would also mean that allowing divorce and remarriage is as much a redefinition of marriage as same-sex marriage. Yet we never hear about divorce in these terms on this forum. Do you think divorce and remarriage is as much of a sin, as much of a redefinition of marriage. as you think same-sex relationships are?

10

Paterfamilia

  • ***
  • 4810 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2016, 08:26:14 am »
I think that one has to consider the order set up by God for men and women. If God set up an order for men and women to live by, then disorder arises from attempting to change that order. Marriage is the order between the union of a man and a woman, see Matthew 19:4-6. The disorder arises when people attempt to redefine marriage as something other than the union of one man and one woman.
Note that this is an answer to a very specific question about a man and woman divorcing, so it it not surprising that Jesus talked in terms of men and women. Taken the way you read them, these verses would also mean -- in fact, more naturally mean -- that divorce and remarriage would be a sin, even if in the original marriage the spouses were fighting constantly and the children were suffering horribly. It would also mean that allowing divorce and remarriage is as much a redefinition of marriage as same-sex marriage. Yet we never hear about divorce in these terms on this forum. Do you think divorce and remarriage is as much of a sin, as much of a redefinition of marriage. as you think same-sex relationships are?


Yes.  With some exceptions.

"First I knocked them out of a tree with a rock.  Then I saved them."

11

Hawke123

  • ***
  • 2415 Posts
  • So much to learn so little time
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2016, 01:21:10 pm »
Soren,

If you dislike the connotations often attached to "lust", then you can take the more up to date NRSV translation which uses the word "passion" instead.  But at the end of the day, it seems like nothing but hyper-pedantic hairsplitting (I'd even call it particle splitting) to insist that if Paul were only against wild, promiscuous, and/or abusive same-sex relationships then he would have been even more specific than he already is Romans 1.  Just how much more specific and clear does Paul have to be than saying that God gives up adamant sinners, both male and female, to "degrading passions" and "shameless acts" of "exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural" and being "consumed with passion for one another"?  One wonders what it would take to convince you that Paul is condemning same-sex relationships in principle rather than in circumstance.  He mentions literally zero circumstances or possible exceptions.  He simply condemns it as inherently sinful rebellion.  Full stop.

It's mistaken to think that we have the teachings of Jesus on one hand and the biblical teachings in the other, as if the two are separate entities that can be seen independently on a whim.  Jesus' teaching are recorded and witnessed to by the biblical authors and by the life and practice of the early church.  Without them, nobody would even know about Jesus and the Christian movement he spawned.  I'd much rather not descend into incoherent and buffet style theology like I mentioned in my previous post.  That sort of approach creates an extremely slippery slope to full blown theological relativism, which as a committed Christian, I wholly reject.

Based upon your experiences, you express deep difficulty in believing same-sex relationships to be inherently sinful.  This is epistemically understandable.  It's hard to believe something is evil when it appears to be life giving and wholesome. 

I've already discussed the reasons for my view from a theological standpoint.  However, I'd like you to understand my view not only from a theological standpoint, but also a social, cultural, political, and personal standpoint.  As you already know, we Christians are already quite distraught enough over the Western culture's abandonment and demonization of Judeo-Chrisitan values.  The jarring and sophomoric demeanor of the New Atheist movement didn't help either.  I do not wish to sully the cordial mood we've established, but I will not pull my punches here.  Consider what else has been happening in the West for the past several decades.  Divorce rates have plummeted, and continue to do so.  Infidelity has not only skyrocketed, but has become something of a fetish or kink (Ashley Madison, cuckoldry porn).  Many people no longer consider sex to be about love, commitment, creating family, pair bonding, intimacy, and alluding to the divine.  All of those aspects of sex are no longer seen as ethical requirements, but mere options of sex.  Options that are often portrayed in the media as oppressive, hassling, outdated, and prudish.  Heck, people hardly even have proper dates anymore.  They just hook up and treat each other like biological sex toys that "consent".  We are told to believe that this is "progress".  If they do date, the dates seem to be nothing more than spy versus spy matches where people compete in a mutual game of deception, flaking, mixed messages, being phony, and trying to care less than the other about the relationship, because both parties are scared to death of emotional vulnerability. 

Men and women seem to hate and distrust one another more than ever before.  Divorce/family courts are extremely biased towards women and men often get taken to the cleaners even if they've done nothing wrong.  Men feel lost, confused, and out of place in this gynocentric, feminized culture.  They are falling behind in school, suffering from depression, resorting to escapism via the internet, porn, casual sex, and videogames.  They commit suicide at a rate that is 3 to 4 times that of women, but nobody asks why or does anything about it.  Masculinity is widely demonized and misframed as being about "insecurity" and "oppressive patriarchy".  Women are seen as great, men are seen as perverts, rapists, thugs, oppressors, and buffoons. 

And now people are trying to make things even worse by saying that gender and sex not only do not matter but are arbitrary, meaningless, and fluid "social constructs".  The history of the LGBT community is full of disease, sexual abuse, promiscuity that would make rabbits blush, drugs, alcohol, and so on.  All at much higher rates than heterosexual, "cisgender" people.  Yet people are shouted down as "bigots" for pointing out these facts that even many LGBT people will bitterly and begrudgingly admit.  But of course, all of those facts are the fault of evil, oppressive, homophobic, bigoted, privileged Christians.  There are people that are biologically of one sex but stridently insist on using the bathroom/locker room of the other sex.  Gay and bi men are allowed to get a free strip show by being in a bathroom/locker room full of straight men who don't want to be stared at and sexualized when changing or showering.  Should we allow straight and bi men to use the women's bathrooms/locker rooms because of "equality" and "rights"?  Should transgender/transexual people really be invited to speak to grade schoolers about how they mutilated their bodies and took hormones?  If you publicly express dissent from any of the above practices and attitudes at school, work, or a social event you risk losing your job, your livelihood, and are subjected to abuse by the SJW Internet Outrage Machine.  You have to stay silent or pretend to be an ardent supporter of SJW madness just to keep bread on the table. 

I don't think it's a coincidence that all of these unsavory practices and attitudes began to occur en masse ever since the advent of the pill, the sexual revolution, feminism, and the LGBT movement.  So as far as I'm concerned, advocating for some level of gender roles, respect for sex, belief in family values, and affirmation of traditional masculinity sounds pretty damn appealing to me.  If I seem irate, I am.  These are very real problems that effect me and my society.  Yet, SJWs push these issues under the rug and dismiss them in the name of tolerance, love, acceptance, diversity, equality, progress, and what ever other self-righteous and hypocritical terms they ascribe to themselves.  If people want someone/thing to blame for Donald Trump being so popular, then blame the leftist/SJW crowd's insane views that silence dissent and have no basis in empirical or rational reality.

Can you understand why many Christians and conservatives believe as we do?  Do you understand why we refuse to budge anymore?  Whenever we have given an inch, people with disingenuous agendas have taken ten miles.  Every.  Single.  Time.  It doesn't take a PhD in analytic philosophy or quantum physics to figure out that SJWs are trying to utterly eradicate everything we value and have built.
"A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge." -- Tyrion Lannister

“It is always so much easier to attack someone else's position than to create and defend your own.” – Glenn Miller

12

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28422 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2016, 02:20:47 pm »
I think that one has to consider the order set up by God for men and women. If God set up an order for men and women to live by, then disorder arises from attempting to change that order. Marriage is the order between the union of a man and a woman, see Matthew 19:4-6. The disorder arises when people attempt to redefine marriage as something other than the union of one man and one woman.
Note that this is an answer to a very specific question about a man and woman divorcing, so it it not surprising that Jesus talked in terms of men and women. Taken the way you read them, these verses would also mean -- in fact, more naturally mean -- that divorce and remarriage would be a sin, even if in the original marriage the spouses were fighting constantly and the children were suffering horribly. It would also mean that allowing divorce and remarriage is as much a redefinition of marriage as same-sex marriage. Yet we never hear about divorce in these terms on this forum. Do you think divorce and remarriage is as much of a sin, as much of a redefinition of marriage. as you think same-sex relationships are?

Jesus defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman in Matthew 19:4-6. He provides the conditions for divorce, which is adultery. SSM is not marriage as far as Scripture and the church fathers are concerned.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

13

Trinity

  • *****
  • 28422 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #43 on: October 08, 2016, 01:48:27 pm »
Bump.
Has anyone read Canada having legalised oral sex with animals?
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1

14

Bill McEnaney

  • ***
  • 2986 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Kim Davis being sued by plaintiff who wanted to marry an animal
« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2016, 02:28:44 pm »
I understand that the ethicist Peter Singer argues for the right of humans to have sex with animals. Even without the consent of the animal. People already make medical decisions on behalf of their pets. Why should a person not have the same liberties with their pet as a human with another human?
An animal can't consent, since animals aren't moral agents.  They're not moral agents, since  they don't have free will.  Sodomy between people is terrible and worse than animal abuse.  But the SPCA and PTA should side with Davis.

Legal plural marriage is legal adultery.