"JesusIsLord" attempts to retell the history of marriage

[wearestardust]

If the Devil likes carrots, why isn't it mentioned in the Bible, then?
Umm, why doesn't it say, 'Aaand...and he took the Lord up to the top
of a high mountain and offered him a carrot'?"

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Now, some Gnostic scholars claim Rachel was asking for a root.

A root vegetable, you mean?

Ah, that would explain it.

[AUSloth]

You've shed light on an old wound there WAS.
I had such a close friend in my youth, we went everywhere together, we were inseparable. Such high times and hilarious adventures we had. Then around puberty she was taken from me, with no explanation, and I was told we could not be together. It was a low point in my life.
I still miss you Katie Carrot

[Logic please]

@Stubby:

Originally Posted by Stubby

JiL,

My red question is still outstanding, and has been repeated several times.

The evidence seems clear that you are not here for discussion.

Originally Posted by Stubby

I'm still waiting for your formal answer, but it seems you are pretty clearly admitting that you oppose gay marriage on the grounds of religion alone.

Second time as a formal, red question:

If you want to prove to us that you honestly do not have a religious reason for opposing marriage equality, please state your reasons for opposing marriage equality without reference to any holy books.

If you are still interested, I thought I'd draw to your attention to an "answer" that JiL provided, that sorta "fits" your red question, although it wasn't directed at your post, AFAIK:

Originally Posted by JesusisLord

If as you say it is ok to change the definition of marriage as NOT being between one man one woman etc to something else then how long will it be until the definition is changed again by another militant minority to include for instance polygamy or many partners- not likely to happen but my point remains that this is all about an attack on marriage to destroy it and degrade it . The main argument seems to be that it is discriminatory against homosexuals which is a lie since there are NO laws that discriminate against homosexuals

So, not a strictly religious reason, just a hysterically fallacious one. Much better then, no?

While it's an "answer" of sorts, methinks that sufficiency, relevance, validity or otherwise are whole other matters. And that still leaves a whole bunch of other carrots issues outstanding, IIRC.

[wearestardust]

@LP: it seems to me that the burden of Stubby's question (conflict of interest: I later asked the same question) is not just: what is a non-religious argument against gay marriage, but also and maybe primarily: "you have stated categorically both that you oppose gay marriage for non-religious reasons not religious reasons, but later said you opposed it because god said so. Which is it, and if god why did you insist earlier that it wasn't because god?"

Or more pithily: "why do you seem to say what suits at the time, JiL?"

But having made this comment I will accept any mod ruling on the matter.

[Stubby]

Both LP and WAS have captured the essence of what I was getting at.

JiL came to us declaring that he opposed marriage equality. This was his first post:

Originally Posted by JiL

Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman for life with the exclusion of all others.
sex outside of marriage is adultery. Simple but profound.

In post 12 in this thread I asked JiL a series of questions, in an effort to show JiL that there was no real reason to oppose marriage equality. As part of his answer to those questions, JiL made this comment, in post 23:

Originally Posted by JiL

I agree in a sense that there is no valid religious reason to oppose redefining marriage. My opposition to redefining Marriage is not religious. It is simply that marriage by definition is between one man and one woman with the exclusion of all others.

Croc then asked JiL where he got that definition from and he stated that it came from Genesis. So his reason was religious after all. I then posed my red question in an attempt to clarify the situation. Was it religious or not? If it was not religious, what was the non-religious reason? If the opposition is religious - just be honest and say so. The question was important as it was predicated on JiL's (correct) concession that there is no valid religious reason to oppose marriage equality.

For the next 15 or so pages, JiL refused to answer this question, but continued to quote scripture at us.

Then he came back with his 'non-religious' reason - a commonly-raised slippery slope fallacy to the effect that changing the definition of marriage so as to correct the prejudices therein would lead to polygamy etc. I have not yet answered that position, but it is enough in my view to refer back to my initial questions - even if the definition did change further (and I am not conceding that it will) then one needs to apply the 5 questions from my first post to those forms of relationship as well.

I concede that the slippery slope answer JiL gave me is an answer (of sorts) to my red question. It is not a very good answer but it is an answer.

In the light of his concession that there is no good religious reason to oppose marriage equality, if the best JiL can come up with is the slippery slope fallacy then it seems he has no good reason to oppose marriage equality on non-religious grounds either.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I can't work out where in Genesis that definition of marriage came from. It isn't in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 or Genesis etc either.

[tjarm69]

I shake my head at such thoughtless words said by those that have such a belief system as this one. I don't really call myself a very intelligent person, but right now I'm feeling very intelligent!

When your religion dictates to you who cannot marry and who can, I would find another one that is kinder and less bigoted. For "JesusIsLord" to even ask for why the statement was bigoted, is an alarm bell!

Why you cannot see for yourself the bigotry of your attitude in which your belief holds is the alarming sign. Think about it and then ask yourself is this the right way to treat others?

If you agree then you have sold out to a belief system that promotes prejudice and therefore harm to others. You have a choice as to what you believe. It is not your right to push your belief onto others and deny others rights to love and marry who they wish. Your belief is your right and no one is denying your right are they?

No one stops you from having your belief. Do they?
Cheers.

[wolty]

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

wolty: Nice timing. What we see now is kind of the equivalent of an "anti-gay" Ku Klux Klan, and for those of you who don't know the KKK (eg. many christians) they happen to be a christian group who enjoyed the life of burning black people to death, umong other bigotry.