toldailytopic: Is polygamy wrong?

[aCultureWarrior]

Looks to me like the only one here that wants to talk about incest and "sex with Flipper" is you. Why is that?

The "ick factor" is still pretty prevalent amongst mainstream society when it comes to talking about CONSENSUAL ACTS such as incest and bestiality.

Hmmmm...not but 10 years ago the "ick factor" was prevalent in mainstream society on the topic of homosexuality.

Let's just hope that we "get with the times" and approve of all CONSENSUAL ACTS so that we're not hypocrites when it comes to the things that God condemns in Leviticus.

 

[Persephone66]

The "ick factor" is still pretty prevalent amongst mainstream society when it comes to talking about CONSENSUAL ACTS such as incest and bestiality.

Hmmmm...not but 10 years ago the "ick factor" was prevalent in mainstream society on the topic of homosexuality.

Let's just hope that we "get with the times" and approve of all CONSENSUAL ACTS so that we're not hypocrites when it comes to the things that God condemns in Leviticus.

There's plenty of things that have an "ick factor" for me, you would probably be hard pressed to name them as I don't bring them up every chance I get.

The question was "Is polygamy wrong?" This has nothing to do with incest or bestiality, why did you bring it up? And why bring homosexuals in to this? It's not about them either.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The *it* was in regards to polygamy.

Then I owe you a HUGE apology; I thought you were talking about ALL acts between "consenting adults" (and animals that don't try to swim away).

I'm glad that we agree that homosexuality, incest, bestiality and adultery are immoral in the eyes of God as well as Satan's atheist flock.

That being said, the act of coitus between a man and a woman is not in itself immoral (as seen in the eyes of God). As shown in the link, the act of coitus between a man and his 5 wives is not inherently immoral (unless it's in an orgy setting), because it is a natural act (unlike homosexuality and bestiality).

As the link showed, there was justification for polygamy in OT days; there isn't now.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

There's plenty of things that have an "ick factor" for me, ...

Fortunately, God, the one who sets the moral standard for ALL society, (not just Christianity) isn't interested in what you find "icky".

 

[MrRadish]

a natural act (unlike homosexuality[...])

:yawn:

How many hundred more species need to be documented as engaging in homosexual acts (beyond the current 1,500 or so) before your ilk stop using the ridiculous 'unnatural' argument?

And before you start on the same, tired response that pointing this out always provokes, I am not saying that its frequency in nature is, in itself, an argument for homosexuality being acceptable. I'm just saying that the fact that it is endemic in the natural world invalidates your assertion that it's 'unnatural'.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

:yawn:

How many hundred more species need to be documented as engaging in homosexual acts (beyond the current 1,500 or so) before your ilk stop using the ridiculous 'unnatural' argument?

And before you start on the same, tired response that pointing this out always provokes, I am not saying that its frequency in nature is, in itself, an argument for homosexuality being acceptable. I'm just saying that the fact that it is endemic in the natural world invalidates your assertion that it's 'unnatural'.

1,5001 would satisfy me.

Question: how many of those 1,500 or so species that have engaged in homosexual acts created an offspring so that their species can remain in existence? (if you answer one or more, I'm going back to give my 9th grade biology teacher heck).

Now if you have heard this tired response about comparing the animal kingdom to mankind before, don't stop me, because I want to hear (or in this case read) it again.

"One commenter on the conservative Free Republic web site scoffed at the idea that homosexuality should be considered normal if animals engage in sodomy. He noted how unwise it is to justify homosexuality for humans simply because such activities may be practiced by animals.
He wrote: “Animals engage in the following:
•“Kill and eat members of their species, that is, they are often cannibals;
•“Kill and eat some of their offspring, that is, they commit cannibalistic infanticide;
•“Compete with other males for the opportunity to have sex with a particular female, often killing or debilitating the rival;
•“Fight with and exile or kill the ‘owner’ of a ‘harem,’ kill his ‘children,’ and then raise other children with the females in the harem (the females show no ‘loyalty’ to their former ‘husband’ and blithely have sex with the new guy).
•“Discriminate against and kill ‘aliens’ to their particular territory or tribe;
•“Often have sex with some of their offspring;
•“Often have sex with relatives and near-relatives (from a human perspective, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, grandparents, etc.), in other words, they commit incest;
•“Let the males just about always get their way (e.g., eat first, win any spats),
•“Often allow large groups of males to have sex with a female, even leaving her near-dead or even dead, that is, they engage in ‘gang rape;’ and
•“Often allow one male to hog all the females in a given area, driving away his ‘sons’ and his ‘friends’ who would like a little sexual ‘pleasure’ with the ‘girls.’
“If we arbitrarily pick which animal behaviors to value, then any such study from which we get insights for human behavior is a complete waste of time.”'

 

[Rusha]

Then I owe you a HUGE apology; I thought you were talking about ALL acts between "consenting adults" (and animals that don't try to swim away).

Well, it's nice to know that one of us understands the difference between adults and Flipper. :thumb:

I'm glad that we agree that homosexuality, incest, bestiality and adultery are immoral in the eyes of God as well as Satan's atheist flock.

First off, *we* (which would include ME) does not agree that anything is immoral based on your chosen religion.

Unlike yourself, I understand the difference between two homosexuals consenting to sex as compared to acts such as bestiality where an animal is incapable of consenting. Though I view adultery as wrong, I do not see it as criminal. It is wrong because in most cases, one spouse is lying to the other and bringing a third party into their relationship (and any disease that goes with them). It also tells the children that it is okay to disrespect the parent who is being cheated on.

That being said, the act of coitus between a man and a woman is not in itself immoral (as seen in the eyes of God). As shown in the link, the act of coitus between a man and his 5 wives is not inherently immoral (unless it's in an orgy setting), because it is a natural act (unlike homosexuality and bestiality).

Seriously ... why are you getting so explicit? IF you feel the need to discuss this stuff, tell your wife and spare ME the details.

As the link showed, there was justification for polygamy in OT days; there isn't now.

Of course there was justification. Little egos need their harems. We understand perfectly.

 

[Persephone66]

1,5001 would satisfy me.

Question: how many of those 1,500 or so species that have engaged in homosexual acts created an offspring so that their species can remain in existence? (if you answer one or more, I'm going back to give my 9th grade biology teacher heck).

Now if you have heard this tired response about comparing the animal kingdom to mankind before, don't stop me, because I want to hear (or in this case read) it again.

"One commenter on the conservative Free Republic web site scoffed at the idea that homosexuality should be considered normal if animals engage in sodomy. He noted how unwise it is to justify homosexuality for humans simply because such activities may be practiced by animals.
He wrote: “Animals engage in the following:
•“Kill and eat members of their species, that is, they are often cannibals;
•“Kill and eat some of their offspring, that is, they commit cannibalistic infanticide;
•“Compete with other males for the opportunity to have sex with a particular female, often killing or debilitating the rival;
•“Fight with and exile or kill the ‘owner’ of a ‘harem,’ kill his ‘children,’ and then raise other children with the females in the harem (the females show no ‘loyalty’ to their former ‘husband’ and blithely have sex with the new guy).
•“Discriminate against and kill ‘aliens’ to their particular territory or tribe;
•“Often have sex with some of their offspring;
•“Often have sex with relatives and near-relatives (from a human perspective, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, grandparents, etc.), in other words, they commit incest;
•“Let the males just about always get their way (e.g., eat first, win any spats),
•“Often allow large groups of males to have sex with a female, even leaving her near-dead or even dead, that is, they engage in ‘gang rape;’ and
•“Often allow one male to hog all the females in a given area, driving away his ‘sons’ and his ‘friends’ who would like a little sexual ‘pleasure’ with the ‘girls.’
“If we arbitrarily pick which animal behaviors to value, then any such study from which we get insights for human behavior is a complete waste of time.”'

That was predictable

 

[Persephone66]

Fortunately, God, the one who sets the moral standard for ALL society, (not just Christianity) isn't interested in what you find "icky".

That's fine. Until his existence is proven, I really don't care what some ancient book or some inbred hick says about some fictional character's standards.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Then I owe you a HUGE apology; I thought you were talking about ALL acts between "consenting adults" (and animals that don't try to swim away).

Well, it's nice to know that one of us understands the difference between adults and Flipper.

Yet one of us doesn't understand that the sphincter muscle wasn't meant to be penetrated (as told to me by my family doctor years ago when I showed discomfort while being given a test that 99% of the male population hates).


Quote:
I'm glad that we agree that homosexuality, incest, bestiality and adultery are immoral in the eyes of God as well as Satan's atheist flock.

First off, *we* (which would include ME) does not agree that anything is immoral based on your chosen religion.

Then *we* can agree that your morals are relative to your own personal tastes.

Unlike yourself, I understand the difference between two homosexuals consenting to sex as compared to acts such as bestiality where an animal is incapable of consenting.

Tell that to Malcolm Brenner and "Dolly".
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/mans-tale-romance-dolphin-10322126

Though I view adultery as wrong, I do not see it as criminal. It is wrong because in most cases, one spouse is lying to the other and bringing a third party into their relationship (and any disease that goes with them). It also tells the children that it is okay to disrespect the parent who is being cheated on.

So your view of adultery would be "relative" to the agreement the husband and wife in the marriage make? If there was "3 party consent", then adultery isn't immoral? (of course as long as it's disease free and the children approve of it).

Quote:
That being said, the act of coitus between a man and a woman is not in itself immoral (as seen in the eyes of God). As shown in the link, the act of coitus between a man and his 5 wives is not inherently immoral (unless it's in an orgy setting), because it is a natural act (unlike homosexuality and bestiality).

Seriously ... why are you getting so explicit? IF you feel the need to discuss this stuff, tell your wife and spare ME the details.

Because homosexuals (who refer to heterosexuals as "breeders"), get upset when they hear about a natural act between a husband and wife. Thanks for making my point.


Quote:
As the link showed, there was justification for polygamy in OT days; there isn't now.

Of course there was justification. Little egos need their harems. We understand perfectly.

Being that you are your own "god", you understand nothing.

 

[Rusha]

Yet one of us doesn't understand that the sphincter muscle wasn't meant to be penetrated (as told to me by my family doctor years ago when I showed discomfort while being given a test that 99% of the male population hates).

Guess what ... females also have tests which WE hate because they are uncomfortable. Based on your logic, the regular act of sex is WRONG because it can be uncomfortable.

Then *we* can agree that your morals are relative to your own personal tastes.

No more so than your own ...

Tell that to Malcolm Brenner and "Dolly".
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/mans-tale-romance-dolphin-10322126

Seriously dude, I do not wish to discuss dolphins with you.

So your view of adultery would be "relative" to the agreement the husband and wife in the marriage make? If there was "3 party consent", then adultery isn't immoral? (of course as long as it's disease free and the children approve of it).

IF all the adults are in agreement, there is no deception.

That being said, the act of coitus between a man and a woman is not in itself immoral (as seen in the eyes of God). As shown in the link, the act of coitus between a man and his 5 wives is not inherently immoral (unless it's in an orgy setting), because it is a natural act (unlike homosexuality and bestiality).

Unlike animals, homosexuals CAN consent.

Because homosexuals (who refer to heterosexuals as "breeders"), get upset when they hear about a natural act between a husband and wife. Thanks for making my point.

What point ... that I don't feel like discussing the private sex lives of homosexual and heterosexual couples? Here is a point to ponder:
Why do YOU wish to discuss them in such graphic detail? First Flipper and then random, imaginary homosexual couples. What an oddly obsessed person you are. lain:

Being that you are your own "god", you understand nothing.

I understand that your opinions do not have any relevance, meaning or power in real life.

 

[MrRadish]

1,5001 would satisfy me.

Would they now?

That comma's in the wrong place, by the way.

Question: how many of those 1,500 or so species that have engaged in homosexual acts created an offspring so that their species can remain in existence? (if you answer one or more, I'm going back to give my 9th grade biology teacher heck).

What has that to do with it? They do it for pleasure and to satisfy (natural) biological urges, not to create offspring. It's a different activity to procreation, it just happens to involve a similar process.

Now if you have heard this tired response about comparing the animal kingdom to mankind before, don't stop me, because I want to hear (or in this case read) it again.

... Once again demonstrating your complete lack of reading comprehension and patent lack of interest in actually addressing real points as opposed to battered old strawmen.

I am not saying that its frequency in nature is, in itself, an argument for homosexuality being acceptable. I'm just saying that the fact that it is endemic in the natural world invalidates your assertion that it's 'unnatural'.

"One commenter on the conservative Free Republic web site scoffed at the idea that homosexuality should be considered normal if animals engage in sodomy. He noted how unwise it is to justify homosexuality for humans simply because such activities may be practiced by animals.
[list of animal behaviours considered unacceptable among humans.]
“If we arbitrarily pick which animal behaviors to value, then any such study from which we get insights for human behavior is a complete waste of time.”

Given that your post has got nothing to do with the point I carefully explained that I was making, I'll consider this a concession of the argument by you.

Homosexuality, whether it is morally acceptable or not, is natural.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
1,5001 would satisfy me.

Would they now?

That comma's in the wrong place, by the way.

Since we're talking about wrong places: your mind and heart are worshipping the wrong religion.

Quote:
Question: how many of those 1,500 or so species that have engaged in homosexual acts created an offspring so that their species can remain in existence? (if you answer one or more, I'm going back to give my 9th grade biology teacher heck).

What has that to do with it? They do it for pleasure and to satisfy (natural) biological urges, not to create offspring. It's a different activity to procreation, it just happens to involve a similar process.

While I can't say why animals do things that aren't acceptable to mankind, I do know that humans that do things soley out of pleasure are known as hedonists, and are destructive to themselves and to society in general.


Quote:
Now if you have heard this tired response about comparing the animal kingdom to mankind before, don't stop me, because I want to hear (or in this case read) it again.

... Once again demonstrating your complete lack of reading comprehension and patent lack of interest in actually addressing real points as opposed to battered old strawmen.

Forgive me for not having the intellectual mindset of an atheist (ya know us rednecks, we cling to our guns and Bible, i.e. we aint two smert).


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRadish
I am not saying that its frequency in nature is, in itself, an argument for homosexuality being acceptable. I'm just saying that the fact that it is endemic in the natural world invalidates your assertion that it's 'unnatural'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
"One commenter on the conservative Free Republic web site scoffed at the idea that homosexuality should be considered normal if animals engage in sodomy. He noted how unwise it is to justify homosexuality for humans simply because such activities may be practiced by animals.[list of animal behaviours considered unacceptable among humans.]
“If we arbitrarily pick which animal behaviors to value, then any such study from which we get insights for human behavior is a complete waste of time.”

Given that your post has got nothing to do with the point I carefully explained that I was making, I'll consider this a concession of the argument by you.

Homosexuality, whether it is morally acceptable or not, is natural.

Being that murder, rape and sodomy both occur in the animal kingdom AND in mankind, you could say that those behaviors are natural as well.

Man, unlike animals, is able to distinguish between what is moral and what isn't (through God's Word).

That is why man has laws, and animals go by natural instinct.

 

[Persephone66]

Also predictable.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I understand that your opinions do not have any relevance, meaning or power in real life.

Speaking of real life: Is this the atheist/agnostic theme song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VscVP_Gt_s

 

[Persephone66]

Speaking of real life: Is this the atheist/agnostic theme song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VscVP_Gt_s

here's a better one for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-PX2Z4r-e4

 

[aCultureWarrior]

here's a better one for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-PX2Z4r-e4

So tell me P66, was Voltaire singing to your fellow transvestites in that song? I'm not high on drugs so I had a difficult time understanding his HATRED for God.

 

[Persephone66]

So tell me P66, was Voltaire singing to your fellow transvestites in that song? I'm not high on drugs so I had a difficult time understanding his HATRED for God.

I'm not high on drugs either. Are you sure you are not on drugs, because that would explain a lot.

He never mentioned any hatred for any god. I'm sorry the song went well over your head.

 

[MrRadish]

Since we're talking about wrong places: your mind and heart are worshipping the wrong religion.

Worshipping a religion, eh?

Interesting.

While I can't say why animals do things that aren't acceptable to mankind, I do know that humans that do things soley out of pleasure are known as hedonists, and are destructive to themselves and to society in general.

Doing something for pleasure is hedonistic? You've never done something solely because you enjoy it, then? People who take a walk in the park to enjoy themselves are the scourge of civilisation? People who sit back and unwind with a novel after work, or who enjoy a nice game of chess now and then, or who go to the pub at the weekend and have a laugh with their friends - they're all enemies of themselves and the world around them?

Good grief, your life must be depressing.

Forgive me for not having the intellectual mindset of an atheist (ya know us rednecks, we cling to our guns and Bible, i.e. we aint two smert).

As Christians are apt to point out, forgiveness is useless without the promise to try harder next time. And you certainly don't seem to be making any attempt to have an intellectual mindset.

Being that murder, rape and sodomy both occur in the animal kingdom AND in mankind, you could say that those behaviors are natural as well.

Yes, they are. Murder and rape are unacceptable, but, like homosexuality, they aren't unnatural. That was exactly the point I was making, as I very clearly pointed out. Twice.

 

[Rusha]

Speaking of real life: Is this the atheist/agnostic theme song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VscVP_Gt_s

No ... that is for geeks. Here's is the Agnostic theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7movKfyTBII&ob=av3e