Homosexual marriage II

[GreyMouser]

Is it okay to interrupt and post something about homosexual marriage on this thread?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he will respect today's vote against revisiting debate on same-sex marriage, and considers the matter closed.

MPs voted 175-123 on Thursday against a Conservative motion calling for the government to introduce legislation restoring the traditional definition of marriage.

"We made a promise to have a free vote on this issue, we kept that promise, and obviously the vote was decisive and obviously we'll accept the democratic result of the people's representatives," said Harper. "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

Though the Conservatives had to intoduce this to fulfil a campaign promise, their hearts weren't in it, and Harper wanted to get it over with with as little fuss as possible.

Latest polls show support at 58%, a 3% gain since the legislation was first introduced, while opposition has dropped by the same amount, to 36%.

I suppose we can expect total societal breakdown in the imminent future.

[GreyMouser]

IR, while you are right on the subject of the origin of morals, one thing that has to be emphasised is that right and wrong were originally only applied within the social group; it was wrong to kill your neighbor rape his daughter because that was threatening the unity (and hence survivability) of the group.

Killing outsiders and stealing their women was quite acceptable, and even morally right.

7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [a]

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Numbers 31

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Is it okay to interrupt and post something about homosexual marriage on this thread?



Though the Conservatives had to intoduce this to fulfil a campaign promise, their hearts weren't in it, and Harper wanted to get it over with with as little fuss as possible.

Latest polls show support at 58%, a 3% gain since the legislation was first introduced, while opposition has dropped by the same amount, to 36%.

I suppose we can expect total societal breakdown in the imminent future.

Total societal breakdown? Why, because about half the Conservatives voted against the traditional marriage measure?

Harper isn't stupid. He knows he can't win this issue and he fulfilled the election promise. I think he doesn't want to weaken his minority government by pursuing the issue when it is not a priority for many Canadians.

[GreyMouser]

And of course, congratulations to Mary Cheney on her pregnancy. Unfortunately, as a highly-paid Washington lobbyist, she has to live in Virginia, which denies all rights to gay partners, so her companion of fifteen years will have zero rights with regard to their child.

Oh well, after the Democratic victory in 2008 has reduced her value as a lobbyist, she can move to a more civilised jurisdiction.

Wonder if the announcement was held until after the November elections? After all, there's a Cheney family tradition of conveniently timed pregnancies.

[Lief Erikson]

GreyMouser, you're taking this passage out of context, and then making inaccurate generalizations off of the results.

7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [a]

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Killing outsiders and stealing their women was quite acceptable, and even morally right.

First of all, let's look at your statement that "killing outsiders" was viewed as morally right. Well, I think few on this site will argue that destroying the invading Nazi armies was morally wrong. So there are certain circumstances that justify killing outsiders. Your claim, then, must be that killing any random outsiders was considered morally right. This is not a claim that is supported by the incident you cite.

Israel destroyed the Midianites after the Midianites attacked them first. That is why, in the beginning of the chapter you cite (a part of it that you did not place in your quotation), the Lord says, "take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites." Chapter 22:4-7 describes the Moabites and Midianites allying together against Israel.

The Moabites said to the elders of Midian, "This horde is going to lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field.

So Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the River, in his native land.

Balak said: "A people has come out of Egypt; they cover the face of the land and have settled next to me. Now come and put a curse on these people, because they are too powerful for me. Perhaps then I will be able to defeat them and drive them out of the country. For I know that those you bless are blessed, and those you curse are cursed."

The elders of Moab and Midian left, taking with them the fee for divination. When they came to Balaam, they told him what Balak had said.

In Numbers 31:14-18, one can see what Balaam planned and the great harm done Israel through the schemes of the Midianites and Moabites.

Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle.

"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

In chapter 25, we see that as a result of Balaam's plan and the seduction of the Moabite and Midianite women, 24,000 Israelites were killed by the Lord's plague. Balaam had a clever strategy based upon his accurate knowledge about the rules of the spiritual realm. He operated in the same way demons work, enticing people to sin. He told the Midianite and Moabite women to seduce the Israelites because he knew that this would bring them out of the Lord's favor and into his wrath. This is exactly how demons operate in the world today.

The Midianites and Moabites attacked Israel first, in this way, and Israel engaged in a just retaliatory strike. The Midianite women who had engaged in sexual intercourse had been involved in the fertility rights of Baal of Peor, and this justified destroying them. According to Biblical principles, the man is the head of a household and the head of his wife. The boys of Midien had been brought up with a strongly immoral background and hence immoral tendencies and a dark heritage. Also, there are frequently curses that settle upon people and pass from father to son. As the boys would have been heads of their households, they would have led others to sin. The boys, therefore, had to be killed to.

Women are not the head of the household, and hence wouldn't be as likely to have the power to lead other people to sin, but rather would be much more likely to be swayed toward the way of the Lord. The men would lead the family and so lead the wives, so allowing those who had not been corrupted by the rites of Baal of Peor to survive was possible.

When the Lord allowed the Israelite men to take these women for themselves, this also was not rape. Rather, it was a kindness to these women, for if the men had left them to fend for themselves with all their men and boys dead, they would have starved. The men were the hunter/gatherers, the providers for and protectors of their women. With them gone, these young women could not have survived on their own. It was a mercy for Israel to take the place of their men and admit them into their society.

So the Lord's decision for each of these different groups was just, and Israel's war with the Midianites was also defensive. The Midianites and Moabites had made the first attack.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

GreyMouser, you're taking this passage out of context, and then making inaccurate generalizations off of the results.


First of all, let's look at your statement that "killing outsiders" was viewed as morally right. Well, I think few on this site will argue that destroying the invading Nazi armies was morally wrong. So there are certain circumstances that justify killing outsiders. Your claim, then, must be that killing any random outsiders was considered morally right. This is not a claim that is supported by the incident you cite.

Israel destroyed the Midianites after the Midianites attacked them first. That is why, in the beginning of the chapter you cite (a part of it that you did not place in your quotation), the Lord says, "take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites." Chapter 22:4-7 describes the Moabites and Midianites allying together against Israel.

I thought that the Israelites had invaded out of the Sinai desert to take the land of milk and honey from its inhabitants? In that case, the actions of the Midianites would be more like the peole defending themselves against invading Nazi armies- quite a close analogy, in fact, given the Israelite commitment to genocide.

In Numbers 31:14-18, one can see what Balaam planned and the great harm done Israel through the schemes of the Midianites and Moabites.

In chapter 25, we see that as a result of Balaam's plan and the seduction of the Moabite and Midianite women, 24,000 Israelites were killed by the Lord's plague. Balaam had a clever strategy based upon his accurate knowledge about the rules of the spiritual realm. He operated in the same way demons work, enticing people to sin. He told the Midianite and Moabite women to seduce the Israelites because he knew that this would bring them out of the Lord's favor and into his wrath. This is exactly how demons operate in the world today.

Plagues are sent by God to kill sinners?- wouldn't that mean that doctors, nurses, aid workers, researchers etc are doing the work of the Devil?

The Midianites and Moabites attacked Israel first, in this way, and Israel engaged in a just retaliatory strike. The Midianite women who had engaged in sexual intercourse had been involved in the fertility rights of Baal of Peor, and this justified destroying them.

So you think indulging in pagan fertility rites is a capital crime.

According to Biblical principles, the man is the head of a household and the head of his wife. The boys of Midien had been brought up with a strongly immoral background and hence immoral tendencies and a dark heritage. Also, there are frequently curses that settle upon people and pass from father to son. As the boys would have been heads of their households, they would have led others to sin. The boys, therefore, had to be killed to.

Two-year-olds with dark heritages? Killing babies because they've inherited the sins of their fathers?

When the Lord allowed the Israelite men to take these women for themselves, this also was not rape. Rather, it was a kindness to these women, for if the men had left them to fend for themselves with all their men and boys dead, they would have starved. The men were the hunter/gatherers, the providers for and protectors of their women. With them gone, these young women could not have survived on their own. It was a mercy for Israel to take the place of their men and admit them into their society.

This is even worse than the kid who murders his parents and asks for mercy because he's an orphan.

"We just killed your father in war, then slaughtered your granny, mother, sisters and and your baby brother against the rocks; now out of the kindness of our heart we're going to enslave you because you don't have a family to take care of you."

So, Leif, you would have bashed the old woman's head in, plunged the spear into the young mother's heart, and then smashed her baby's head against the rocks, secure in the knowledge that this was a righteous act and pleasing in the eyes of the Lord- more in sorrow than anger, I'm sure.

I think I'll take my "relativist" morality, thanks.

[Lief Erikson]

*Post contents deleted by Lief.*

[Lief Erikson]

By the way, I think we're really, really off-topic now. Would you respond to my post in the Theology thread?

This post is a repeat of what I said in my post 27, but oh well.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You “frown� on “macro� evolution because it seems more conflicting with the notion that man was created in whole form in gods image rather then a descendent of ancient hominids which seems to disturb some Christians like nothing else.

I frown on macro-evolution because no one has ever, EVER seen it happen. I think micro-evolution happens because lots of people have seen it happen.

(what thread is this?

Originally Posted by IRex

Then why program us with whats right and wrong in the first place? So that there will always be moral tests for us to fail?

So we can know what is right and strive to do it, for our good and the good of those around us, I suppose, is one reason. If there is good, then there must be the possibility of bad, though.

[Lotesse]

GreyMouser, just wanna say you rock, and I love reading your posts, and I think everything you've posted here has stayed perfectly within topic and has had specific and direct relevancy to the posts you've been responding to; if people start crying about off-topicking, it's probably because they're getting nervous and panicky about losing their version of a grip on their assumed position of upper-handedness in the debate. Well, I say don't sweat it, and from a casual observor's POV you're doing more than great in this little debate here and I applaud you, sah! Very cool. Excellent stuff. o.K., sorry to interrupt, carry on then...

[Lief Erikson]

*Wanders around in a circle, nervous, panicky and crying, tears and sweat streaming down his face.*

[Jonathan]

That post cracked me up Lief

[Lotesse]

And I can so picture that, too, I can totally see you like that; that was a funny mental image just now, Lief! You guys are killin' me, O.K.! silly geese - *pictures Lief like that, sees an exagerrated old film noir clip, so funny image! very cool..*

[Tessar]

Lief is a bit scary when he's had too much sugar O.o


Okay, okay, enough fun times, kiddies. Back on topic with the lot of you. Now! Get back on topic right now! o(>.<)O

[Lotesse]

Quite right, quite right, indeed, sah! Shall do. Speaking of homosexuality and marriage, I wonder what this about Dick Cheney's daughter, I wonder how thing'sll pan out for her and her - wife? Wife by common-law marriage, if they've been together for fifteen years? This is the first I've heard about Mary Cheney being preggers; cool news but I'm sure more than a bit sweat-inducing for her ultra-conservative dad. Hmm. We'll see how Virginia state legislation proceeds concerinig legalising gay marriage... didn't the state of Virginia just elect a new - senator or House Rep or something who could have some sway concerning the gay marriage issue?

[Insidious Rex]

They may have a democratic Senator now but I seriously doubt that will make a bit of difference as far as gay marriage goes. Virginia is still quite backwards in that regard.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I frown on macro-evolution because no one has ever, EVER seen it happen. I think micro-evolution happens because lots of people have seen it happen.

And as has been said many times before, not witnessing something happen with your own eyes is by NO means proof of its non existence… You would never make it as a quantum physicist with that attitude. Atoms?! Poppy cock. Theres no such thing…

Fortunately in science we have many different ways of determining the veracity of things. And evolution can be shown to be true by many different means. And if you still insist on believing your eyes only then you CAN see fossils and determine quite a bit about evolution from them just to name one thing… You can also see DNA now that we have the proper amplification tools.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I didn't ignore it at all.

Telling someone they are giving a "blueprint" answer means that you don't really want to talk about the details of that answer and would rather brush it off. I don't give blueprint answers. I think deeply about what I post, usually.

I said you gave a "blueprint" answer about the "opposite situation" I asked you about...don't accuse ME of not wanting to talk about the details, Monsiuer BJenkins; because it did seem to me that you wanted to avoid that issues particulars.

As far as sources on my comment about rape being mostly accepted, and society, not religion, changing this morality (eventhough it has a long way to go), this book is a good resource to start with: Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice

I'll read it when I have time

BTW, did you catch the "Wit-less" Edition of my reply to you?

'Societal evolution' is a description, WE have the morality we have today, because it's what we like/think/want.
Thousands of years of human history does not prove it, certainly not as a whole. The pagan romans threw christians to the lions, and then then romans (generally) became christians, but they did not throw pagans to the lions.

I don't know about that.

And I say that you read this theory too far, because it is not always the case.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And as has been said many times before, not witnessing something happen with your own eyes is by NO means proof of its non existence…

Nor is it proof of its existence ...

You would never make it as a quantum physicist with that attitude. Atoms?! Poppy cock. Theres no such thing…

Physicists are REAL scientists!!! They know how to separate actual observation from educated guesses about the past. And atoms ARE IN THE PRESENT and CAN be observed; changes from one type of being to another does NOT happen in the present and has NOT been observed. My (fossilized ) bone to pick is when evolutionary biologists and their fans make their educated guesses about what happened waaaaaay back in the past into something more than it is, or can possibly be.

Fortunately in science we have many different ways of determining the veracity of things. And evolution can be shown to be true by many different means.

Sure, the easy and unimportant parts like survival of the fittest (duh!) and micro evolution, which you can see.

And if you still insist on believing your eyes only then you CAN see fossils and determine quite a bit about evolution from them just to name one thing…

Yes, you can make educated guesses, just like archaeologists do.

You can also see DNA now that we have the proper amplification tools.

DNA exists in the present :shrug: Real science deals with things that are observeable; the rest is educated guesswork (which is fine, but don't try to pass it off as fact).

I suppose we should move this to t'other thread if we want to talk about it more.

Originally Posted by Mouser

And of course, congratulations to Mary Cheney on her pregnancy. Unfortunately, as a highly-paid Washington lobbyist, she has to live in Virginia, which denies all rights to gay partners, so her companion of fifteen years will have zero rights with regard to their child.

As far as "their child", well, biologically it's certainly not her partner's. I imagine right now Virginia gives rights to biological parents, and to those people that the people of Virginia have decided are valid marriage partners (such things as age, relatedness, marriage status, etc.). If a person chooses a partner outside of those parameters, it's certainly up to them, and they need to be willing to deal with all of the ramifications of that choice.

I don't know, GreyMouser; it's certainly a tough thing, but I think we all just have to go with what we sincerely think is right when it comes to making a vote on societal issues. And different societies will make different decisions on the marriage issues based on their beliefs about what is right and wrong.

[Rían]

PS -

1. IRex - I mean "seen" in the sense of "detected" - not necessarily eyeballing something. One can detect radar signals but not "see" them - they are in the present.

2. GreyMouser - I think a similar situation would be the school that my kids go to. I MUST pay taxes that help fund our public schools, yet my choice is to pay for a private school for my kids because I don't like a lot of things about the public schools. The public has chosen certain schools that they want their money to support, and that's THEIR right; and it's MY choice to choose to put my kids somewhere else, even though that denies me my government benefits in this area. If enough people feel differently, though, school vouchers will pass eventually.

In the same way, the public has chosen that marriage should be defined in a certain way, and if Mary Cheney (or anyone else) wants to choose a partner outside of those definitions, they may, but they won't be "supported" by government benefits (like I'm not supported by government benefits for my kids' schools). If enough people feel differently, though, gay marriage (or any other redefinition of marriage) will pass eventually.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Monsiuer BJenkins; because it did seem to me that you wanted to avoid that issues particulars.

What issue's particulars? Spell it out and I'll be more than happy to point out what you've missed.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I'll read it when I have time

No you won't, because you can't handle the truth!

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The pagan romans threw christians to the lions, and then then romans (generally) became christians, but they did not throw pagans to the lions.

So are we looking at history through christian-colored glasses again, where the wrongs that christians do are understandable and the wrongs that anyone else does are catastrophic?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I don't know about that.

Then find out!!! I think it's an aspect of history that too few people are willing to accept because they simply don't like the implications.