Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,886 Year: 4,143/9,624 Month: 1,014/974 Week: 341/286 Day: 62/40 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5941 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 200 of 309 (161030)
11-18-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Itachi Uchiha
11-18-2004 7:56 AM


Re: stats
In order to find something harmful in homosexuality and lesbianism (if it exists) I need to know what is to you something harmfull. I can't go any further without knowing what harmfull means to you.
-The very first post asks "What is HARMFUL about homosexuality?" NOT "What is considered harmful?".
-So, you need to provide an explanation why homosexuality might be exclusively harmful as opposed to heterosexuality.
-Therefore, PS does not need to tell you what he/she thinks is harmful...car accidents are harmful...YOU need to
.....find something harmful in homosexuality and lesbianism (if it exists).....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-18-2004 7:56 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Taqless
Member (Idle past 5941 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 201 of 309 (161042)
11-18-2004 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Silent H
11-18-2004 9:06 AM


Re: rrhaindom bits...
Hey Holmes,
The point is that... if you are going to be honest here... race was never mentioned in law books as a pre-req, certainly not traditionally or historically.......
If I'm not mistaken for a very long time the main churches refused to marry inter-racial couples. I have heard from many that they feel there is a biblical basis for not supporting inter-racial unions. My point is that while this lack of support for inter-racial marriages was not underlined by state laws in this country, for non-religious reasons, it most certainly was supported by the mainstream religions in this country for quite a few years. This constitutes both historical and an "unwritten" tradition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 9:06 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 2:13 PM Taqless has replied

Taqless
Member (Idle past 5941 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 213 of 309 (161205)
11-18-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Silent H
11-18-2004 2:13 PM


This means that while denying mixed race (mixed religion too) marriages were certainly historical and in certain regions tradition, it did not have anything like the history and tradition of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, and was not at all of historical legal precedent.
Agreed. As an aside, I would say this is primarily attributable to the fact that inter-racial unions do not preclude a simplified procreation...which I would hazard had a ripple effect...i.e. it was such a big deal in the beginning that it just stuck?!? I actually heard a young Mormon say that initially it was necessary that their forefathers practiced polygamy...the only thing that came to my mind was giving your religion an advantage...dunno though (and off topic...oops).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 2:13 PM Silent H 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