Social I have been married for a year and a half...

[UpaLoompa]

Many of the instances you're probably thinking of occurred under different periods of law. Early marriages that you're considering incestuous that were not prevented early in the Old Testament were eventually frowned upon with the implementation of the Mosaic Code and later the New Covenant.

So which times was god wrong?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Well since incest is okay in the bible, probably.

Unless you have a different Bible than the rest of us; then no it isn't

 

[UpaLoompa]

Unless you have a different Bible than the rest of us; then no it isn't

Which parts are you assuming, this time, are allegorical? More specifically, there are parts of the bible which if taken literally necessitate marriage with close relatives.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

So which times was god wrong?

Are you asking when God told us not to do it? I'm not sure that you can call something wrong when there wasn't a prohibition against it.

Btw- doesn't evolution suppose massive inbreeding - at least originally?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I'm not saying anything is allegorical.

-If 1 were to assume that Adam and Eve were the only 2 people then of course incest led to what we have today.

-on the other hand if you assume that other people besides Adam and Eve were created then there doesn't have to be incest.

Either way doesn't really matter as there was no prohibition aginst incest until the Mosaic Laws - that would be some time between 1500-1200 BC

 

[UpaLoompa]

Are you asking when God told us not to do it? I'm not sure that you can call something wrong when there wasn't a prohibition against it.

Well if it was okay once, why did it become not okay later? Special circumstances or was god wrong on this inconsistency? (inconsistencies introduce a whole lot of ambiguity as to what's wrong)

Btw- doesn't evolution suppose massive inbreeding - at least originally?

Inbreeding is really common and sometimes advantageous (and sometimes not). So?

 

[TheComebackKid]

Check and Mate. This sums TCk's posts on SSM to a perfect T.

It has become comical, after spending thousands of posts demonstrating his opposition to SSM, he follows it all up with, "oh...I'm pro gay marriage ..."

Like I said earlier...at least Ripskater is honest as to why he's against SSM.

What has it been...2, 3 years and about 4 accounts? And you're still following me around from thread to thread piggy backing on other peoples posts because you are too mentally handicapped to make your own? Lol, all these years and you are still my son. You're never going to beat Dad...give it up kid.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You mean like the last one in which you stayed away for about the time it takes to get a drink?

You mean the time where someone outside of our conversation asked me a question in which I gave a two word answer and then took a break? Yeah, that time.

You're getting called out and simply don't like it. The truth is you are not for SSM marriage. You say you are, but only through a vote, which at this point you know is not how it is going to become legal in all 50 states. You have simply positioned yourself in a place that you can argue against SSM in every way you can think of, but not be against it. Perhaps it is to keep people from labeling you, or so you can throw out your "stance" when they do. Perhaps you know that those opposed to SSM are going to go down in history as being on the wrong side of the argument. Whatever your reason saying you are for SSM is you being dishonest.

My reason is clear and consistent. I think this debate over SSM is ugly and causes divisions. I would like to go ahead and recognize SSM so that we as a society can no longer fight about it. I don't think gay people are being wronged if SSM isn't recognized and I don't support you guys forcing this onto everyone through the courts.

Not really sure what the big conspiracy is.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Well if it was okay once, why did it become not okay later? Special circumstances or was god wrong on this inconsistency? (inconsistencies introduce a whole lot of ambiguity as to what's wrong)

Who said it was ok? In instance 1 it would have been a necessity; while in instance 2 no one had ever been told not to do it.

If a child isn't told not to play in the street why would it ever assume it shouldn't?

Inbreeding is really common and sometimes advantageous (and sometimes not). So?

Just curious as to when inbreeding (incest) became wrong in biology. I mean incest led to all the life we see on this planet today and now it's bad? Clearly something changed. So when did biology change?

I'd say evolution leads to inconsistencies and ambiguity as to what's good or bad.:icon_idea

 

[TheComebackKid]

Please spare me. You are trying to have things both ways, but simply will not admit it.

What two ways am I trying to have it? I don't think SSM will lead to incest and never argued it therefore there is no slippery slope. But I also think SSM advocates(those claiming traditional marriage is discriminatory) are being hypocrites in regards to incest.

Again, not sure what the big conspiracy is. Seems to me you guys just don't want to defend your hypocrisy, or evolve your philosophy, and you shout "slippery slope" as a smoke screen so you don't have to.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Well you could start by being honest and not posting this type of crap. Just because you say you are not arguing a "slippery slope" does not make that the case when you argue the incest angle for multiple pages and days.

Again, incest "angle"? There is no angle. What I am arguing regarding incest is straight forward and clear. It is also clear that I am not saying SSM will lead to incest...ie slippery slope.

This is what I mean...you guys just get to a point where you stop responding to the actual arguments presented and instead insist that someone is really arguing or really feels something different.

"I don't hate gay people" - Yes you do.

"I don't think SSM will lead to incest" - Yes you do.

"I've never argued that SSM will lead to incest" - Yes you have. You've been pushing this angle for days!

Lol. This is what its come to.

You say you are for Gay Marriage, just through a democratic process, but spend a huge amount of time making every argument in the book against it, over and over. No one that supports something spends that much time arguing against it.

The arguments I am making are why its not a civil right...not that we shouldn't recognize SSM. I've never spent time arguing about why SSM will harm society.

"I support SSM" - No you don't.

You simply want to argue against something you don't believe in, but are unwilling to make a solid stand fearing in the end you maybe wrong. You should really get into politics because you have no problem saying one thing yet claiming something else.

I don't believe SSM is a fundamental right and I have presented arguments supporting that. I don't believe traditional marriage is discriminatory and I have presented arguments supporting that.

I have never argued that SSM is harmful and shouldn't be allowed.

Again, respond to what I type not what you think I really think.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

What has it been...2, 3 years and about 4 accounts? And you're still following me around from thread to thread piggy backing on other peoples posts because you are too mentally handicapped to make your own? Lol, all these years and you are still my son. You're never going to beat Dad...give it up kid.

Yea, I knew you would say something like this...

Lol...cool story bro

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Some one should make an Internet meme about Tck

"Spends 10,000 posts as to why he's against gay marriage.


Says he's for gay marriage.

 

[TheComebackKid]

That wouldn't really be accurate tho considering I don't make any arguments about why I'm against SSM. You notice how you have to routinely tell lies in order to try and "get me" on something? You should just let it go son.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

That wouldn't really be accurate tho considering I don't make any arguments about why I'm against SSM. You notice how you have to routinely tell lies in order to try and "get me" on something? You should just let it go son.

Lol...so textbook and predictable. ..i havehaven't lied once about your position.

You claim to be for SSM. This is true, right?

Look at every post of yours in this thread and all other threads regarding gay marriage. You state arguments In opposition to gay marriage. This is also an accurate assessment, correct?

So...please tell me how I'm distorting your position. ..

And don't cop out and say, "...this is pointless blah blah blah..."

Try again homie.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I would have more respect for you if you would just state your position and not dance with semantics. Your shtick is well documented and nobody believes it. I may be an asshole but if my feet are held to the fire, so to speak, I will state my position. The fact that you don't makes you an incredible hack.

And this is precisely why I respect ripskater's position on the matter. I completely disagree with it but he doesn't obfuscate his position nor does he try and play both sides..

 

[My Spot]

Some one should make an Internet meme about Tck

"Spends 10,000 posts as to why he's against gay marriage.

Says he's for gay marriage.

Scumbag Steve.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/scumbag-steve

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

This is TCK.

 

[JaPo]

Lol @ TCK.

Every single poster with but a shred of sense sees through your shameless tactics, yet you continue to plug away with the same shtick at every opportunity. Your actual character is at such a level of mediocrity and your argument so spineless that fallacy leaks from every word of every post. That you continue to profess of your argument's infallibility despite falling in hole after hole is perhaps the most alarming thing. Only the most gullible cretin would now be duped by your posts. Ripskater's forthright with his wilful ignorance and religious background but you and PiL try every cheap trick in the book to legitimise and obfuscate an intellectually moribund standpoint. I just want you to know that there are many people smarter than you that have read your posts in this thread and, rest assured, they see you for everything your blown up self back-pattery betrays.

 

[m52nickerson]

I was working on a response to this at work and got interrupted. I thought I hit submit, but guess I didn't get that far.

Changing the name of the group or organization wouldn't necessarily creating something new. If the group is expected to handle adding a kid of the opposite sex and not miss a beat I think they could handle a name change (although it would be expensive to change flyers, websites, signs, etc. so maybe it wouldn't be the best idea).

Regardless, I fail to see a valid reason to even consider encouraging a boy to join the girl scouts or a girl to join the boy scouts. Heck, we can't even use the term congressman any more without some feminist or PC group pitching a fit. Groups have got to make up their mind. Do you want to be included or do you want some great form of separate recognition.

I may not have all of the answers, but the reasons I'm using are valid to me and many others.

There is simply no reason for those groups to change names because they let a few kids of the opposite sex in.

Again, I'm not saying encourage, but let the kids join if they want to. I gave you a few valid reasons why, but you have failed to even give one single valid reason why not.