Page 7 of 8 [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,847
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria

02 Sep 2020, 12:20 pm

I guess there were political reasons for all that at the time. People were encouraged to breed and produce kids, especially sons that could go into battle to defend their territory, and homosexuality went against the injunction to "be fruitful and multiply".

Today, a fair percentage of gay couples like to adopt kids and can make excellent parents.

Today, there's no need to "be fruitful and multiply" as overpopulation is causing lots of problems for the world.


_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?


my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/


KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,573

02 Sep 2020, 12:26 pm

AngelRho wrote:
KT67 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
If a society claims to grant all adults equal rights, it’s just silly to deny anyone the right to vote. The listed reasons are sadly funny in today’s context, though I’m sure those are nothing more than rhetoric/scare tactics to preserve a status quo. You have to assume must people are idiots to expect them to actually believe it and expect that to work.

A better rationale would be to say only individual households are allowed to vote. You could reasonable expect that husbands/wives would agree on nearly all issues, so counting wives’ votes would be like counting the same vote twice. This puts single-parent households with different needs at a disadvantage. Note that I never said that women specifically shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Doesn’t matter whether the husband or wife actually casts the vote. The point would be that some representative of the family votes on their behalf. A few details would need to be worked out. Do all independent persons get a vote if they are unmarried and do not have any dependents, or does it apply strictly to any head of household?


Nowadays?!

No you couldn't assume that.

And are we really expectiing modern women to be the ones not to vote if that's the system? Not the women and men I know...

What about gay people?

Multi generation households?

People who live with house mates?

Stupid system, just give every adult the right to vote.

Gay people would count as independent singles just like heterosexual singles would. In fact, protected classes would have more an advantage since family votes would be concentrated into a single vote. Single parent homes and divorcees would also be better represented. Gays would actually have a political incentive NOT to get married since it would mean their vote would count more. Gays who ARE married...well, again there would be a strong possibility that as with married couple you’d expect solidarity.

With multigenerational homes it would come down to the head of the household. If you have two successive generations dependent on a matriarch, or if you have elderly dependents of a daughter who had dependents of her own, i.e. children or a disabled adult son or daughter, then she’s already making decisions on their behalf. It makes sense for her to represent her family in voting.

The point is not depriving anyone of representation. It’s just that it’s reasonable to assume solidarity within family units. A gay dependent should feel confident that the decisions his parents make on his behalf are the best decisions. An independent gay man is free to marry (at least in the USA) and start a family of his own.

I think that or a similar system would more adequately reflect attitudes and wishes of the people. But I think you might be right when it comes to implementation. There are drawbacks to both.


It really doesn't.

If it did then us three adults wouldn't have such strong arguments within the home.

I don't think we're particularly unusual.

It should be, one adult one vote. Disenfranchising people doesn't help democracy, it does the opposite.

A gay dependent might have homophobic parents ffs lol.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,385
Location: Stendec

02 Sep 2020, 12:55 pm

DeathEmperor413 wrote:
The Bible has a lot of contradictions.  On one hand it tells you to love your neighbor, on the other hand it says to kill homosexuals and witches.
On one hand, it tells fathers to "not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (EPH 6:4); while on the other hand, it give fathers instructions on the proper way to sell their daughters as slaves (EXO 21:7-8).


_________________
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature, nor any ultimate evaluation of
human nature beyond that which we project onto others, individuals should only be judged or defined
by their actions and choices, and not by what we imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


DeathEmperor413
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 881

02 Sep 2020, 1:06 pm

Fnord wrote:
DeathEmperor413 wrote:
The Bible has a lot of contradictions.  On one hand it tells you to love your neighbor, on the other hand it says to kill homosexuals and witches.
On one hand, it tells fathers to "not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (EPH 6:4); while on the other hand, it give fathers instructions on the proper way to sell their daughters as slaves (EXO 21:7-8).


I believe it also says to kill disobedient children.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/disobedient_children


_________________
♥♦♣♠


emotrtkey
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 316

02 Sep 2020, 1:13 pm

Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
There are many good reasons why I ... believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Unfortunately, I can't share them because this forum doesn't tolerate anyone disagreeing with liberal ideology on this topic.
No, the reason they would not be allowed on this website is because those ideas are regressive, repressive, and misogynistic, and rank right down there with keeping women barefoot and pregnant so that they will stay at home while serving their master-husbands.

Equating a woman's submission to her husband with moral behavior is an expression of hateful sexist ideology that has been holding women back for thousands of years.


I'm well aware that liberals think they're better than everyone who lived before them. Everyone was regressive, repressive, and misogynistic until liberals came along a century ago to enlighten everyone with their "progressive" "values". I find that level of arrogance and intolerance to be very repulsive. I don't need to be reminded of it.



emotrtkey
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 316

02 Sep 2020, 1:17 pm

DeathEmperor413 wrote:
The bible has a lot of contradictions. On one hand it tells you to love your neighbor, on the other hand it says to kill homosexuals and witches. :jester:


The Bible NEVER says to kill homosexuals. There is no contradiction between loving your neighbor and punishing immoral behavior unless you want to argue that murder and rape should be legal.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,955

02 Sep 2020, 1:19 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
There are many good reasons why I ... believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Unfortunately, I can't share them because this forum doesn't tolerate anyone disagreeing with liberal ideology on this topic.
No, the reason they would not be allowed on this website is because those ideas are regressive, repressive, and misogynistic, and rank right down there with keeping women barefoot and pregnant so that they will stay at home while serving their master-husbands.

Equating a woman's submission to her husband with moral behavior is an expression of hateful sexist ideology that has been holding women back for thousands of years.


I'm well aware that liberals think they're better than everyone who lived before them. Everyone was regressive, repressive, and misogynistic until liberals came along a century ago to enlighten everyone with their "progressive" "values". I find that level of arrogance and intolerance to be very repulsive. I don't need to be reminded of it.


It's Not A Liberal Issue;
Or A Conservative Issue;
It An Issue of Empathy
That's Real for Others;
And Basic Humanity For All;
Treating Everyone Human And
Not As A Tool to Use.

If it doesn't
Do that;
It's Really
Just Plain Disgusting.

We LiVE in the 21st
Century; There are
No Humans in Zoos
in the United States; We Hope...

to keep
it that way...


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


LittleGreenMen
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2020
Gender: Female
Posts: 7
Location: Basement Office

02 Sep 2020, 1:20 pm

Yeah, sexist claptrap isn't allowed on WP. Feel free to stay mad about it.


_________________
"Sure. Fine. Whatever."

--LGM


DeathEmperor413
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 881

02 Sep 2020, 1:21 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
DeathEmperor413 wrote:
The bible has a lot of contradictions. On one hand it tells you to love your neighbor, on the other hand it says to kill homosexuals and witches. :jester:


The Bible NEVER says to kill homosexuals. There is no contradiction between loving your neighbor and punishing immoral behavior unless you want to argue that murder and rape should be legal.


Bullshit. Read Laviticus 20:13. It's right there!

https://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm


_________________
♥♦♣♠


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,385
Location: Stendec

02 Sep 2020, 1:21 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
The Bible NEVER says to kill homosexuals...
Oh ... really?

Leviticus 20:13 clearly states: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Have you ever actually read the Bible?  Do you even own one?  Why are you misrepresenting what it says?


:roll:


_________________
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature, nor any ultimate evaluation of
human nature beyond that which we project onto others, individuals should only be judged or defined
by their actions and choices, and not by what we imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,955

02 Sep 2020, 1:30 pm

LittleGreenMen wrote:
Yeah, sexist claptrap isn't allowed on WP. Feel free to stay mad about it.


Yep; Reminds me of the "Stefan Molyneux"
Stuff in A Dark Corner of YouTube that
YouTube Finally Swept away;
Magnificent Haven
For so-called
Incels it was;
i studied it for
A While as a
Participant Anthropology
Observer too; That And A Whole Lot
of Other Garbage Trope Conspiracy
Theorists, the 'Likes' of Folks Suggesting
An 'Anti-Christ' Was/IS Gonna Come Back
Now And Rule the World With Love; Heaven
Forbid, The NeWesT Messiah Trump is doing His Best to Stay in Power...

What's The World Coming to...

Every Nightmare
And Dream
Humans
Still
Bring
to Fruition;
'Story' is Still
'The Real King And
Or Queen of the World';
We All Better Jump on the Boat
to Understand that Rationality
Works But it Doesn't Move Lies to Truth...

Honestly, We Can't Expect to Be too Polite With Truth And

Expect Truth to Survive...

"Our Shadows
Do 'KNoW'
'Better'
With
No
Words
At All..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,385
Location: Stendec

02 Sep 2020, 1:40 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
There are many good reasons why I ... believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Unfortunately, I can't share them because this forum doesn't tolerate anyone disagreeing with liberal ideology on this topic.
No, the reason they would not be allowed on this website is because those ideas are regressive, repressive, and misogynistic, and rank right down there with keeping women barefoot and pregnant so that they will stay at home while serving their master-husbands.  Equating a woman's submission to her husband with moral behavior is an expression of hateful sexist ideology that has been holding women back for thousands of years.
I'm well aware that liberals think they're better than everyone who lived before them. Everyone was regressive, repressive, and misogynistic until liberals came along a century ago to enlighten everyone with their "progressive" "values". I find that level of arrogance and intolerance to be very repulsive. I don't need to be reminded of it.
And I am well aware of the fact that many people will cherry-pick their data to "prove" their opinions, as if they believe that their audiences are both ignorant and gullible.

I am neither.

Not only have I read the Bible, but I have led Bible-study sessions at church and in my home, mainly because I am an ordained elder in the Presbyterian church and I spent a couple of years at a Catholic seminary in the Mid-west.

Do you wish to continue this discussion, or will you concede the fact that I (and several others) know at least as much about the Bible and the so-called "Christian" teachings you espouse, and return to the topic of this thread?


:?


_________________
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature, nor any ultimate evaluation of
human nature beyond that which we project onto others, individuals should only be judged or defined
by their actions and choices, and not by what we imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,573

02 Sep 2020, 2:05 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
There are many good reasons why I ... believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Unfortunately, I can't share them because this forum doesn't tolerate anyone disagreeing with liberal ideology on this topic.
No, the reason they would not be allowed on this website is because those ideas are regressive, repressive, and misogynistic, and rank right down there with keeping women barefoot and pregnant so that they will stay at home while serving their master-husbands.

Equating a woman's submission to her husband with moral behavior is an expression of hateful sexist ideology that has been holding women back for thousands of years.


I'm well aware that liberals think they're better than everyone who lived before them. Everyone was regressive, repressive, and misogynistic until liberals came along a century ago to enlighten everyone with their "progressive" "values". I find that level of arrogance and intolerance to be very repulsive. I don't need to be reminded of it.


Interesting how most of these trolls aren't veterans...



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,998
Location: Oz

02 Sep 2020, 5:28 pm

Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
The Bible NEVER says to kill homosexuals...
Oh ... really?

Leviticus 20:13 clearly states: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Have you ever actually read the Bible?  Do you even own one?  Why are you misrepresenting what it says?


:roll:


Yup.
Is there *any* religion that *doesn't* have a problem with homosexuality? :scratch:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


DeathEmperor413
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 881

02 Sep 2020, 7:20 pm

Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
The Bible NEVER says to kill homosexuals...
Oh ... really?

Leviticus 20:13 clearly states: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Have you ever actually read the Bible?  Do you even own one?  Why are you misrepresenting what it says?


:roll:


Yup.
Is there *any* religion that *doesn't* have a problem with homosexuality? :scratch:


Most wiccans I know seem cool with it, even though they believe a man and a woman are both needed for creation. There's no way of getting around that. :star:


_________________
♥♦♣♠


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,385
Location: Stendec

02 Sep 2020, 7:35 pm

Pepe wrote:
... Is there *any* religion that *doesn't* have a problem with homosexuality?
Fnordism.


_________________
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature, nor any ultimate evaluation of
human nature beyond that which we project onto others, individuals should only be judged or defined
by their actions and choices, and not by what we imagine their intentions and motivations to be.