Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
67 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,278 Year: 4,390/6,534 Month: 604/900 Week: 128/182 Day: 8/27 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal question
gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 168 of 193 (20735)
10-24-2002 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by nos482
10-24-2002 4:47 PM


[QUOTE][B]What if the family believes that siblings should marry to "keep the bloodline pure"?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

If they are of legal age, what's the problem?

[QUOTE][B]Are you saying that this is ok[/QUOTE]

[/B]

No, I never said that existing abuse laws should be nulled. But I think that gov't shouldn't require teaching of logic or interfere with parent's teaching their kids whatever religion they want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 4:47 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 7:00 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 175 by compmage, posted 10-25-2002 3:25 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 169 of 193 (20736)
10-24-2002 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by nos482
10-24-2002 8:21 AM


[QUOTE][B]I remember, on another board, when this topic came up someone posted a set of guidelines from the 19th century for newlyweds on how the bride could avoid having sex with her new husband. It would have been quite funny if they weren't truly serious about it.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

What's wrong with it? If your wife doesn't want to have sex and you force her into, that's rape. It's not different from if you did that to your next-door neighbor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 8:21 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 7:05 PM gene90 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 193 (20738)
10-24-2002 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by gene90
10-24-2002 5:09 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

Which is patently false. Sex, whether hetero or homo, can very well be harmful.

here you are quite wrong yourself. It is not sex which is the problem, but as I keep saying, it is ignorance about sex.

So then do you have a right to harrass Mormons on the street? Or wouldn't that be religious intolerance? Would you drive up to a gas station, and if you saw a Christian fish on a vehicle there, confront the driver about his religious preferences and tell him about how unreasonable he is?

Why not, they harrass us when they come to our doors.

Then what right have you to criticize my moral values?

Because they are based on ignorance in this case.

Only if you presuppose there is no God, just as I presuppose there is.

What imperical evidence do you have that your god actually exists? The difference is that he isn't trying to impose his non-belief on all if given half a chance as many theists would and do.

"There's no transitional fossils!"

"There's no evidence of God!"

Show me god's fossils.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:09 PM gene90 has taken no action

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 193 (20739)
10-24-2002 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by gene90
10-24-2002 5:11 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

If they are of legal age, what's the problem?

I see that you know nothing of genetics.

No, I never said that existing abuse laws should be nulled. But I think that gov't shouldn't require teaching of logic or interfere with parent's teaching their kids whatever religion they want.

Many religions teach "spare the rod and spoil the child" to mean that children should be beatened to keep them moral and obedient. Existing anti-abuse laws "interfer" with their right to practice thier beliefs in this regard. Plus, there are so-called Christian "scientists" who let their children die horrible deaths because they believe that all they need to do is pray to their god to heal them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:11 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:41 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 193 (20740)
10-24-2002 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by gene90
10-24-2002 5:25 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

What's wrong with it? If your wife doesn't want to have sex and you force her into, that's rape. It's not different from if you did that to your next-door neighbor.

That isn't the issue here. It is not about rape or force, it is about discouraging sex for pleasure. The bride is being told to hate sex and only to have it in order to reproduce and not take any pleasure in it at all. If they had artifical insemination back then it would have probably been the standard required practice so they wouldn't have to actually touch each other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:25 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:37 PM nos482 has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 173 of 193 (20756)
10-24-2002 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by gene90
10-24-2002 3:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B](Wait a minute...I'm talking to a young man in his early twenties, and I am telling him that there is more to life than hormones...what am I thinking?)[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Hey Schraf, how much LOWER do you intend to stoop? True I had respect for you but a few more remarks like that and it's going to be flying out the window.

Maybe you should run along and start harrassing someone else over their personal beliefs and their age...


Sorry I probably wanted to put a at the end of that message.

That was a joke, Gene.

...such a serious young man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 3:54 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:42 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1408 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 174 of 193 (20757)
10-24-2002 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by gene90
10-24-2002 3:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Lots of Christianity-based sodomy laws out there which technically affect married couples as well as gay men.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I don't think the government has a right to pass laws about sexual practices.


Between consenting adults, right?

Other than that, right on.

PS And I include polygamy, too, but not just polygyny.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 3:55 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:33 PM nator has taken no action

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 4391 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 175 of 193 (20767)
10-25-2002 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by gene90
10-24-2002 5:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:

No, I never said that existing abuse laws should be nulled. But I think that gov't shouldn't require teaching of logic or interfere with parent's teaching their kids whatever religion they want.


I was giving my opinion on how a child should be raised. It is how I am going to try and raise my son. I never ment to imply that this is the method the government should force all parents to adopt. The fact that I consider force-feeding a child religion damaging and abusive does not mean that I should be allowed to force you (or anyone else) to raise your children in any manner different from what you think is best. I am excluding parents that think burning children with irons or some such is acceptable, etc.

------------------
compmage


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:11 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:35 PM compmage has taken no action

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 193 (20797)
10-25-2002 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by gene90
10-24-2002 5:09 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]Actually what you said in Post 115 of this thread was:

[QUOTE][B] Homosexuality could be due to the extreme similarity of the sexes. It could be that it provides some positive social bonding. It could be that it simply isn't harmful.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Oh.... hmmm.... I stand corrected. I must change that to "it simply isn't that harmful"

quote:
Which is patently false. Sex, whether hetero or homo, can very well be harmful.

Ok. Everything has some degree of danger to it. I don't see that homosexuality is any more dangerous than heterosexuality or, say, driving a car on a daily basis, or working a high stress job.

quote:
So then do you have a right to harrass Mormons on the street?

No.

quote:
Or wouldn't that be religious intolerance?

It would be. Despite our differences, we have to live together. This is the key issue for me. As long as I am not being imposed upon by a faith, I am happy to let it be.

quote:
Would you drive up to a gas station, and if you saw a Christian fish on a vehicle there, confront the driver about his religious preferences and tell him about how unreasonable he is?

I wouldn't, no. Though I have been approached and preached at by those fish-on-car people.

Again, we have to live together.

quote:
Then what right have you to criticize my moral values?

In my case, it is ultimately a selfish endeavor. What you believe is mostly irrelevant to me, but your reasons for what you believe may effect my reasons for my own beliefs. I try to think of everything, but I am not quite so arrogant as to think that I can succeed at that. You are a check and balance. It would be flattering if I converted you, but I wouldn't spend so much time here for that reason. Like I said, what you believe doesn't effect me for the most part. (Of course, this changes in the political arena. Laws do effect me.)

quote:
Only if you presuppose there is no God, just as I presuppose there is.

It is a theory of knowledge issue. What is the source of our knowledge? Empirical information. Any other stating point requires a greater number of assumptions. There is no evidence for a God.

quote:
The logic I criticize dealing with Creationists is the same logic I criticize coming from atheists, only they push different ideaologies with it. I've debated both, and the arguments are often almost identical.

"There's no transitional fossils!"

"There's no evidence of God!"


Except there are transitional fossils. Very bad analogy.

Gene, in any other arena, would you believe something for which there is no evidence?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:09 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:32 PM John has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 177 of 193 (20839)
10-25-2002 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by John
10-25-2002 11:57 AM


[QUOTE][B]Ok. Everything has some degree of danger to it. I don't see that homosexuality is any more dangerous than heterosexuality or, say, driving a car on a daily basis, or working a high stress job.
[/QUOTE]

[/B]

And I agree. I don't think a monogamous homosexual relationship is more dangerous than monogamous hetero.

[QUOTE][B]Gene, in any other arena, would you believe something for which there is no evidence?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Actually I believe I have highly subjective evidence that there is a God, but you would just say that I've found a way to release endorphins on demand. Nos would put it in a much less charitable way.

In any other arena is a bit loaded. In science? No because everything in science is physical and must leave some sort of evidence. Well maybe, I believe there is *probably* some extraterrestrial life in the universe but with no evidence...although some would argue probability is on my side therefore it does not count.

In religion? If I were not a theist I would still have to accept the possibility rather than just to decide one day there is no God.

By the way I'm not sure there's no *historical* evidence for God either but I'm not going to mess with that yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by John, posted 10-25-2002 11:57 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by John, posted 10-26-2002 10:07 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 178 of 193 (20841)
10-25-2002 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by nator
10-24-2002 11:07 PM


[QUOTE][B]Between consenting adults, right?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Of course. I recognize that slavery still exists, even in Europe and parts of the US.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by nator, posted 10-24-2002 11:07 PM nator has taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 179 of 193 (20842)
10-25-2002 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by compmage
10-25-2002 3:25 AM


[QUOTE][B]The fact that I consider force-feeding a child religion damaging and abusive[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I don't see any evidence of that. And ultimately the child grows up and makes his own decisions. In fact a lot of our resident atheists started out like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by compmage, posted 10-25-2002 3:25 AM compmage has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by nator, posted 10-29-2002 9:56 AM gene90 has taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 180 of 193 (20843)
10-25-2002 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by nos482
10-24-2002 7:05 PM


[QUOTE][B]That isn't the issue here. It is not about rape or force, it is about discouraging sex for pleasure. The bride is being told to hate sex and only to have it in order to reproduce and not take any pleasure in it at all.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Your message implied it only told the bride how to avoid having sex if she did not want to have sex.

You did not say it discouraged sex.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 7:05 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by nos482, posted 10-25-2002 8:58 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 181 of 193 (20844)
10-25-2002 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by nos482
10-24-2002 7:00 PM


[QUOTE][B]I see that you know nothing of genetics.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I didn't say that inbreeding does not have negative consequences, I said that people have a right to marry whoever they want.

[QUOTE][B]Many religions teach "spare the rod and spoil the child" to mean that children should be beatened to keep them moral and obedient.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I personally don't have an opinion on that so this comment has fallen upon deaf ears.

[QUOTE][B]Plus, there are so-called Christian "scientists" who let their children die horrible deaths because they believe that all they need to do is pray to their god to heal them.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

That's legal in Canada?

Here in the US I believe that would fall under our child neglect laws.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 7:00 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by nos482, posted 10-25-2002 9:10 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 182 of 193 (20845)
10-25-2002 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by nator
10-24-2002 11:05 PM


Sorry then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by nator, posted 10-24-2002 11:05 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by nator, posted 10-29-2002 9:58 AM gene90 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022