Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   First Gay marriage, then Polygamy (its happening!)
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 21 of 94 (248333)
10-02-2005 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by bkelly
10-02-2005 2:12 PM


Re: what's the problem
If two men and one woman, or two women and one man wish to live their lives as a social unit, why is that bad? Just one for example, in our moden society, two can work while one stays home to take care of the children. There are many other reasons and possibilities. There is no crime and there is no victim. What is the problem
It seems to me that in order for polygomy to work best, say in the one man and multiple woman arrangement, you need as a minimum 4 women.
If you have just 2 women, they will fight.
If you have only 3 women, 2 will gang up on the other.
But with 4 women to 1 man, there is little room for jealosy or fueds because of the additional dynamics that 4 female personalities bring to the union.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bkelly, posted 10-02-2005 2:12 PM bkelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by coffee_addict, posted 10-02-2005 8:39 PM Lizard Breath has replied
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2005 4:01 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 39 of 94 (250514)
10-10-2005 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by coffee_addict
10-02-2005 8:39 PM


Re: what's the problem
Hi Jacen. Sorry I've taken so long to answer back. Events in the Gulf Coast region and in Iraq have been keeping me very busy. I actually damn near got my ass killed down in the Gulf the day that the hurricane hit Texas. It's sometimes safer in the middle east then in the U.S.
According to you, psychological experiments have shown that it is more natural for men to not be in physical contacts with each other but it is natural for women to be close to each other. Even though you didn't say it out loud, your past comments have indicated that you thought homosexuality was unnatural and, perhaps, even wrong.
Just from the natural perspective, men normally tend to tense up when they are touched by another man. It's a proven natural reaction for men to tense and flex when another man reaches out and touches them. It is going way against the norm whan a man somehow gets is circuits cross wired and somehow wants to be touched by anouther man, let alone to be held by one. On the battlefield, when a close friend goes down it is quite common for another soldier to hold them but that is in a protective comradare bondsmanship relationship. Deffineitly no romance or sexual anything in it thouogh.
So for a man to want to have himself held in an intimate passionate lip lock embrace with another man and have his junk spammed by another dude is way out of bounds from the natural perspective as how men are wired. From a Biblical perspective, it is an abomination before the Creator. According to the Bible, whenever 2 humans bond in sexual intercourse, there is a merging of the spirits which is why anything outside of a monogomous man/woman marriage relationship is an invitation for trouble and sadness. So to have two men bonding with each other in this way is just creating all kinds of twisted craziness within the wiring of God's handywork.
Since we will probably never understand the wiring schematics of the human brain, reinforcing corrupted software with corrupted behavior is just accelerating the degeneration of these people.
According to the Bible, we all have the same sin nature. It's not the sins that make us bad. It is the sin nature in all of us. So instead of dealing with the sin nature, some choose to celebrate the sin and since we don't understand the machine which is the human soul, we end up with twisted thinking that homosexuality is every bit as normal. Well it is because it is sin, but not because it is correct or morally right, but once you get rid of Biblical morality and replace it with human wisdom, you get the worst of human behavior being thrust on the planet as liberty and freedom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by coffee_addict, posted 10-02-2005 8:39 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by berberry, posted 10-10-2005 6:34 PM Lizard Breath has replied
 Message 42 by Ben!, posted 10-10-2005 6:39 PM Lizard Breath has not replied
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 6:42 PM Lizard Breath has replied
 Message 49 by bkelly, posted 10-10-2005 9:13 PM Lizard Breath has not replied
 Message 53 by coffee_addict, posted 10-10-2005 11:44 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 41 of 94 (250550)
10-10-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by bkelly
10-04-2005 8:18 PM


Of course, that could be three people being vindictive, but that happens anyway and represents no change.
That would be a very interesting theme for a good law movie. To see how the courts would handle a 5 party divorce and how to appropriate child support and visitation between all 5 parties.
A bigger problem would be all the various forms of infidelity that could arise and what remedy the courts would use if some members of the 5 wanted a form of divorce but other members would rather forgive and hold all 5 together as one family unit.
One of the wives might go out and have an affair but not meet with any animosity from the other 3 wives, but the husband want to dump her. The other 3 wives might contest because they really love her and don't wish to unbalance the 4 to 1 equation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bkelly, posted 10-04-2005 8:18 PM bkelly has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 44 of 94 (250554)
10-10-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by berberry
10-10-2005 6:34 PM


Re: what's the problem
That's an assertion. You claim it's been proved. Let's see the proof.
Go into your local home improvement store and and grab a piece of 4x8 plywood and ask to have it cut in third's. After the guy finishes and you have it loaded onto the cart, reach out and put your hand around the top of his arm just below the deltoid and then look into his eyes and thank him. Then post us back with a description of his response. That's why men shake hands. It's a natural mechanical funtion mixed with a civilized concept of greeting.
Then go into the wallpaper department and do the same thing to a woman clerk after she spends some time showing you samples for your study/den remodeling project. She may pull back, but she won't flex on you like the dude will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by berberry, posted 10-10-2005 6:34 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 7:01 PM Lizard Breath has replied
 Message 48 by bkelly, posted 10-10-2005 8:50 PM Lizard Breath has not replied
 Message 52 by berberry, posted 10-10-2005 10:53 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 46 of 94 (250565)
10-10-2005 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
10-10-2005 6:42 PM


Re: what's the problem
You sound like you're appealing to some standard that exists in nature, but we know that homosexual animals exist in just about every species we've looked at, so its pretty obvious that you're simply referring to the Biblical standard when you say "natural" or "normal."
Biblically, the "sin nature" entered the world through one man as the result of that man replacing the love of God for the love of self. The Bible says that the whole world wast effected by the introduction of sin. So saying that homosexuality appears in many spieces of animals making it perfectly acceptable for humans doesn't get much play from a Biblical perspective.
If anything, the behavior might have first been observed in animals, and humans in their fallen degenerate state simply mimicked the behavior earlier in history as a form of extreme rebellion.
What's unnatural is a gay man having sex with a woman, for instance.
It is perfectly natural for a gay man to have sex with a woman. He is equiped with genitals designed to enter a woman for depositing sperm. This function has no purpose between two men. What is different is an unnatural preference for sexual intimacy with the same sex. I don't know the psychological components that precipitate the behavior, but nobody is born a homosexual. Everybody is born with a sin nature and some express this more freely by living gay. Others practice it by being permiscuious, prideful, lustful, coveteous and the list goes on.
Ah, right, but lesbians are ok. Why do the Christians always pick on the gay men? Everybody loves lesbians, that's my theory.
Ther is no difference with lesbians either. They are not designed to complement each other in a loving harmonious marriage. Because they have a more sensitive nurturing makeup, many people mistake this as a compatibility advantage and that lesbianism is ok. But it doesn't make any difference. Biblically, the female is the "weaker" vessle. Not the "Lesser" vessele. The weaker one. So even in lesbian relationships, they need to have had some psycological catalysts occur in their lives to drive them away from what they were designed for which was to be the mothers of the next generation, and a helper to the man. It is not a secondary role, but just like in a Winston Cup Car, everyone see's the outside of the car but to see the engine, you have to lift the hood. In all families that are running on all 8 cylinders, ther is a very capable and tremendously self sacrificing woman behind the scenes who is the power behind the success. And if the husband is doing is role properly, he is the visible body who also enshrines and protects the engine of the family, the woman/mom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 6:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 10:36 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 47 of 94 (250566)
10-10-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
10-10-2005 7:01 PM


Re: what's the problem
Go to France, or many Muslim countries. Be introduced to another male that you have not met before.
Again, you are talking about a civilized form of greeting. If that is the custom, then the contact method is processed through the brain the same as a handshake. But go and grap the same man outside of a greeting, say walk up without the greeting and reach out and clasp him while asking a question, and he will flex, naturally. Have a woman do that, and if she is feminine in her personna, he will not tense up and flex. Interestingly, when women out in the professional world try to adapt an alpha male personna, men react to them as if they were a dude. It isn't natural for physical sexual intimacy between dudes.
As far as muslim countries backing legitimacy for homosexuality based on their greeting customs, you'ld better hope that we win this war over there because muslims will not take the time to establish a dialog with you on homosexuality as they are cutting your arms off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 7:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 10:43 PM Lizard Breath has not replied
 Message 55 by Silent H, posted 10-11-2005 5:11 AM Lizard Breath has replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 56 of 94 (250855)
10-11-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Silent H
10-11-2005 5:11 AM


Re: what's the problem
Hey, check a mirror, you are both a threat.
I am neither a Nazi or a member of the Klan. I see Jews as people charged by God with the responsibility to be an example to the rest of the world of what a relationship with the Creator looks like.
I am not a believer in races. All I see is people with different levels of melenin expresses in their outer skin layers. At a point long ago, dark skin was more favorable in certain regions and so the software human swithed on the already formed ability to produce more melenin. In other regions, the lack of sunlite ment that lighter skin was better to allow enough vitamin D to be produced. The reason that some people have maintained their darker skin away from the hotter regions for so long is a function of our high standard of living with no enviormental pressure for the software human to adapt.
I reject Darwin's pioneering work that divided the human population into seperate spieces with whites on top and polynesians, blacks and aboriginees on the bottom of the group as far as development.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Silent H, posted 10-11-2005 5:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 10-11-2005 4:26 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 75 of 94 (251402)
10-13-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
10-13-2005 7:29 AM


Re: generally not born fixed
It seemed like what he meant by "natural" was "what most people do", but such a definition obviously doesn't support his points.
I haven't bailed from the discussion but I've been bussier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest with broken aircraft @ work, and tons of catch up work to do @ home. I've been out in the system a lot lately but I'll try to do better as soon as I'm semi caught up.
LB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 10-13-2005 7:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024