@philokalia saidI have let the question be the question. There is absolutely nothing wrong with contributions to a message board being "editorialized".
Why not let the question be the question, and the question be something that seeks to be objective, and not have the question editorialized.
@philokalia saidIf you can't cope with how I have used the words "discriminating" and "discrimination" ~ because they are not "interchangeable" with your own perspectives and biases ~ then I can see that you are perhaps going to flounder under the weight of the OP question and instead moan and groan about how it is worded.
Re: culture changing
That's right -- it goes from conservative to liberal to conservative to whatever. Indeed, it can change so much that the phrases that we use and questions that we ask are not necessarily interchangeable.
@philokalia saidThanks for your advice.
I think that is the most mature way to phrase things. It makes the whole thing like an invitation to discussion. When you do it this way, it just makes the territory hostile & abrasive from the start.
@bigdoggproblem saidBut you agree with the issue: Dogs and men cannot marry. So, believing that a man cannot marry a dog isn't discrimination. It's just a belief about what constitutes marriage.
This is a poor argument; it fails to the simple and obvious counter-fact that dogs can't give sexual consent.
In this case, you think dogs and men can't marry because dogs can't consent.
I think it is impossible because marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, and even in the case of polygamy, I would say that it is an issue where some of the wives are not even "married" properly but are just experiencing concubinage.
This isn't discrimination.
It's what I believe about the institution of marriage and it is not couched in a way to show hostility or discrimination against the polygamous, or against other people who do not meet the requirement.
I am sure there are many nice, kind people I would get along with who have had concubines -- I tend to get along swimmingly with Muslims. Yet, I do not believe these are valid marriages and morally right.
The same would be for a man who tried to marry a dog or call it a marriage; it's just impossible.
I once read about an Indian man who married a dog as part of some ritual to cure himself of bad luck (I assume there is no 'consummation' and this was not perverted at all), but I sitll found this to be... strange? Not right? Etc.
Maybe a lovely man. In fact, let's assume the best about him: by marrying a dog to break some curse he was trying to do right, and he is a lovely man. Yet, he cannot marry a dog. It just doesn't constitute a marriage.
But not a marriage.
@philokalia saidDo you think the government should discriminate against people of the same sex who want their marriages to be recognized by the state, want legal protections in the case of divorce, and want to benefit from the same tax breaks that heterosexual married couples get etc. etc.?
But you agree with the issue: Dogs and men cannot marry. So, believing that a man cannot marry a dog isn't discrimination. It's just a belief about what constitutes marriage.
@bigdoggproblem saidIt's interesting to see how often people who disapprove of homosexuals resort to analogizing their partners to animals or their relationships to non-consensual sex.
This is a poor argument; it fails to the simple and obvious counter-fact that dogs can't give sexual consent.
@bigdoggproblem saidThis, and this exactly.
Man looks on the political appearance. The Lord looks on the heart.
Thank you for fully understanding what some self-righteous Christians totally miss.
@bigdoggproblem saidTherefore professions of faith with the mouth are meaningless. Yet you will find Christians promoting mouth worship. God sees the heart and this means that God is seeing the good works and righteousness that a man has done and is capable of in the future.
Man looks on the political appearance. The Lord looks on the heart.
All people have sinned and are sinners. Jesus said only those whose righteousness exceeds mouth worship [the Pharisees], will enter the Kingdom of God. This is a direct contrast to the doctrine of Christianity which states that professions of faith is what gets you into the Kingdom of God.
Christianity is tainted with all manner of sin and evil, worse than homosexuality. There are gay couples who I am certain will fare better on the day of judgment, than some professed Christians who think that their eternal life is secure. For this reason alone gays should be left alone and not persecuted.
1 edit
@rajk999 saidExcept that both are required.
Therefore professions of faith with the mouth are meaningless. Yet you will find Christians promoting mouth worship. God sees the heart and this means that God is seeing the good works and righteousness that a man has done and is capable of in the future.
All people have sinned and are sinners. Jesus said only those whose righteousness exceeds mouth worship [the Pharisees] ...[text shortened]... at their eternal life is secure. For this reason alone gays should be left alone and not persecuted.
Not one, or the other. Both.
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." - Romans 10:9-10 KJV
For what it's worth, I agree with your third paragraph.