Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Cheeetar]

Okay- what about two infertile dudes boning each other? They're taking themselves out of the fertile population, after all.

They are having sex outside of marriage so that's not right

You say: Marriage is for procreation.
You say: Infertile men and women getting married is okay (takes them away from potentially boning fertile people.)
Therefore: Why is it that two infertile men getting married is not okay? It'd take them away from potentially marrying a fertile person.

Also:
That you see homosexuals as equivalent to liars, thieves, compulsive gamblers and infedelic people is kind of indicative of your religion.

[Frumple]

Okay- what about two infertile dudes boning each other? They're taking themselves out of the fertile population, after all.

They are having sex outside of marriage so that's not right

They would be alright to marry and then bone, though, if the reasoning you proposed for why infertile couples marrying is acceptable (despite not furthering the reproductive mandate of God) is extended logically. Ninja'd by Chee, but eh.

The saying it's not a religion is part of my belief, that's what they preach at my church therefore it's part of my Christian belief an in context of the thread

Clarifying that initially would probably have been a good idea. There's a tremendous difference in stating that christianity is not a religion and stating that your local doctrine states that christianity is not a religion for <reasons>. The former pretty much guarantees an incredulous or hostile response, the latter, considerably less so.

And desc... I get why you ranted, but this is probably not really the place for it, or at least not that verbosely. Overt hostility doesn't help much, and there's people hanging around that seem genuinely interested in hearing bits about christian doctrine as opposed to anti-religion rant X^5.

[Descan]

I guess :v

I got carried away~

[Gentlefish]

Good rant though. PTW, can't just catch this through GD anymore.

[freeformschooler]

As any discussion of Christianity continues, the probability of someone mentioning Cain's wife approaches one.

[Orange Wizard]

I think the point of Jesus was to be underwhelming. Disappointing, even.

[Gnorm]

Okay- what about two infertile dudes boning each other? They're taking themselves out of the fertile population, after all.

They are having sex outside of marriage so that's not right

You say: Marriage is for procreation.
You say: Infertile men and women getting married is okay (takes them away from potentially boning fertile people.)
Therefore: Why is it that two infertile men getting married is not okay? It'd take them away from potentially marrying a fertile person.

Also:
That you see homosexuals as equivalent to liars, thieves, compulsive gamblers and infedelic people is kind of indicative of your religion.

The idea of marriage being specifically for procreation is not found in the Bible, to my knowledge. Such a concept is likely linked to the individual ideas of local churches and congregations. What the Bible does say is that man and woman are intended to come together to form one, something that is not present in Sodomous relationships.

You have also answered your own question by taking note of the disgust in which God holds Sodomites.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

The reason it's not right in my belief is that marriage can only happen between a man and a woman, so even though the two men that are not fertile may not take away from the fertile populace they still can't marry



Also to add to a similar note infertile couples are not sinners for taking from the fertile populace because god also created marriage to allow man to "simulate" the kind of one to one relationship he created us for (ok minus the sex)

As for fertile couples, god wants them to get married (one man one woman) so that they can share in gods power of creation *caugh making babies caugh*


Once again to not get angrily ranted at (BTW the part about people getting punished for what their ancestors did isn't correct since those people were still doing the same sins that their ancestors did and you/we are still doing those sins as well and we have a choice not to do them but we do it anyways) all of this is in my belief and opinion please don't take offence to it and sorry if you did

[Gnorm]

You're too soft, Cryxis.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

You're too soft, Cryxis.

Do you want me to be fire and brim stone or this

I am to sides of the same coin, I'm just trying to keep on the respectful side as best I can

[TheDarkStar]

Once again to not get angrily ranted at (BTW the part about people getting punished for what their ancestors did isn't correct since those people were still doing the same sins that their ancestors did and you/we are still doing those sins as well and we have a choice not to do them but we do it anyways) all of this is in my belief and opinion please don't take offence to it and sorry if you did

My religion has a similar view, with a few differences: The Fall was important, but was also necessary, so while it brought death and suffering, Adam and Eve are not punished for it. Rather, people are/were punished for the sins that they themselves have committed, and Christ's atonement lets us repent if we choose to do so (the general process is stop sinning, fix what you did (including addiction help and going to a spiritual leader for help where applicable), pray, and not do it again). So, similar in that people are accountable for their own sins rather than their distant ancestors, but different in a few details.

[Cheeetar]

The reason it's not right in my belief is that marriage can only happen between a man and a woman, so even though the two men that are not fertile may not take away from the fertile populace they still can't marry

Also to add to a similar note infertile couples are not sinners for taking from the fertile populace because god also created marriage to allow man to "simulate" the kind of one to one relationship he created us for (ok minus the sex)

But you said marriage was for procreation earlier. What's this about it only happening between men and women?

So, god created marriage to simulate one to one relationships between a person and him- why is it that women can marry men to simulate that relationship, and men can marry women, but not women marrying women or men marrying men?

[Descan]

The bit about ancestors was about original sin, and besides, there's plenty of "curse you and your children to the 7th generation" (or whatever) in the bible, even without that. But it was mainly to do with original sin. :v At any rate, it's still scapegoating.

Anyway, there's nothing exclusively complimentary about a female mind and a male mind. Two same-gender people are fully capable of having the interplay, leap, and dance of minds that is a romantic couple. The sex bit is just icing on the cake. Er... No pun intended.

To think otherwise would be to delve into stereotyping, "Women are like this, men are like that, and never the t'wain shall mix!" Which... going out into a crowd of people and actually *paying attention* to the people around you would be more than enough to dispel that myth into the dustbin.

And there's no other reason I can think of to think men and women are the only possible couple besides something complimentary. The physical apparatus are just fiddly details, they... really don't matter beyond attraction.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Once again to not get angrily ranted at (BTW the part about people getting punished for what their ancestors did isn't correct since those people were still doing the same sins that their ancestors did and you/we are still doing those sins as well and we have a choice not to do them but we do it anyways) all of this is in my belief and opinion please don't take offence to it and sorry if you did

My religion has a similar view, with a few differences: The Fall was important, but was also necessary, so while it brought death and suffering, Adam and Eve are not punished for it. Rather, people are/were punished for the sins that they themselves have committed, and Christ's atonement lets us repent if we choose to do so (the general process is stop sinning, fix what you did (including addiction help and going to a spiritual leader for help where applicable), pray, and not do it again). So, similar in that people are accountable for their own sins rather than their distant ancestors, but different in a few details.

Sounds really similar to me

[Frumple]

The idea of marriage being specifically for procreation is not found in the Bible, to my knowledge. Such a concept is likely linked to the individual ideas of local churches and congregations.

Is there any reason given for marriage beyond authorial fiat in the bible?

What the Bible does say is that man and woman are intended to come together to form one, something that is not present in Sodomous relationships.

This, though, not necessarily true. A heterosexual married couple is perfectly capable of sodomizing one another. Similarly, homosexual relationships don't necessarily involve sodomy* -- hell, female homosexual relationships are relatively unlikely unlikely to, to say nothing of male homosexual relationships that don't involve acts of sodomy.

... female homosexual relationships are also mentioned very little in biblical texts, iirc. Leviticus liked the ladies, I guess.

*Depending on how you define it -- the original meaning was strictly anal, so it's probably best to use that in reference to biblical strictures.

And @original sin, to be honest that's at least partially non-biblical. You can sorta' spin the text to read that out of it, but it's not explicitly stated. Mostly just lingering influence of... Augustine, I think? Or Aquinas. It mostly was one of those two that started the whole spiel off.