Man Wants to Marry a Goat

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, I was aware of that, and have argued the question of homosexuality in the Torah before. I was alluding to the primitive notion that the animal could somehow be to blame—I was being ironic.

Ok got it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he is trolling you.


he insists on continuing to make a mockery of this thread because that is all he and sonship are capable of doing. they cannot form a valid and coherent thought.


people like them cannot grasp the notion that it's none of their fukin bussiness who enters into a marriage, that it doesn't affect any of their rights, privileges or ...[text shortened]... we won't be able to see these homophobic fossils much longer. they are quickly going extinct.

I totally agree that the man should be allowed to marry the goat pal.
Although I have Christian beliefs, I accept that the state does not need to have Christian beliefs as well. So if they pass legislation to allow the man to marry the goat then thats not my concern as you rightly said.

Originally posted by Rajk999
The point is that people can find ways around that. Once you open the floodgates of gay marriages the fear of many was that the entire institution of marriage would be different and those who are attracted to animals [and there are such people] would lobby for further change to include their taste.

I think that fear is unfounded, as the point is to extend the institution to those who would meet all the same criteria of marriage as a committed relationship as are required of heterosexual couples. (I note that you did not say that it is your fear.)

Goats do not have the capacity to conceptualize or communicate consent to such a contractual relationship. The criteria are not there. Goats mate with one another however goats mate.

In any event, perhaps we’re taking this far too seriously (in fact, I’m shaking my head at myself as I write this). I am still giving sonship the benefit of the doubt on whether he intends this as an analog for gay marriage—which would be categorically absurd (not that it hasn't been done).

Originally posted by vistesd
I think that fear is unfounded, as the point is to extend the institution to those who would meet all the same criteria of marriage as a committed relationship as are required of heterosexual couples. (I note that you did not say that it is your fear.)

Goats do not have the capacity to conceptualize or communicate consent to such a contractual rel ...[text shortened]... an analog for gay marriage—which would be categorically absurd (not that it hasn't been done).

Lol .. yep never thought the joke would go so far. Its not my fear. I have heard people who are against gay marriages say ".. what next.. animals?". I have heard it said that there are women who have sex with their dogs and farmers, their sheep.

As for 'unfounded', Im pretty sure that say 500 years ago nobody would ever imagine that homosexuality would be an acceptable lifestyle much less marriage between them, legal. Judging from how the 20th century changed so many things, its hard to imagine what a couple more centuries would bring. If I could live that long I would be both scared and excited at the same time about the future.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Lol .. yep never thought the joke would go so far. Its not my fear. I have heard people who are against gay marriages say ".. what next.. animals?". I have heard it said that there are women who have sex with their dogs and farmers, their sheep.

Another thing that often comes up is "..what next... polygamy?" at which point I remind them that our current president of South Africa is a polygamist.

As for 'unfounded', Im pretty sure that say 500 years ago nobody would ever imagine that homosexuality would be an acceptable lifestyle much less marriage between them, legal.
I always cringe when people say 'x many years ago people thought/ it was like this'. Its so easy to forget that 500 years ago there was no globalization and you need to specify where in the world you are talking about. I am guessing you mean '500 years ago in upper class England'.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Lol .. yep never thought the joke would go so far. Its not my fear. I have heard people who are against gay marriages say ".. what next.. animals?". I have heard it said that there are women who have sex with their dogs and farmers, their sheep.

As for 'unfounded', Im pretty sure that say 500 years ago nobody would ever imagine that homosexuality would be ...[text shortened]... I could live that long I would be both scared and excited at the same time about the future.

In the USA, I see the homosexual lifestyle more as being tolerated rather than being accepted. Human and animal marriage is not even tolerated here.

The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
Another thing that often comes up is "..what next... polygamy?" at which point I remind them that our current president of South Africa is a polygamist.

[b]As for 'unfounded', Im pretty sure that say 500 years ago nobody would ever imagine that homosexuality would be an acceptable lifestyle much less marriage between them, legal.
I always cringe ...[text shortened]... ld you are talking about. I am guessing you mean '500 years ago in upper class England'.[/b]

Was a homosexual lifestyle accepted in any part of the world 500 years ago. I mean openly gay couples living together and being outwardly affectionate etc etc ? It is accepted now in the western world.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Was a homosexual lifestyle accepted in any part of the world 500 years ago. I mean openly gay couples living together and being outwardly affectionate etc etc ? It is accepted now in the western world.

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality

Originally posted by Rajk999
Was a homosexual lifestyle accepted in any part of the world 500 years ago. I mean openly gay couples living together and being outwardly affectionate etc etc ?

I don't know. Do you?

I am also pretty sure that the concept of legal marriage was only present in some parts of the world at that time.

Originally posted by vistesd
No, it’s recognition that goats do not have the same degree of conceptual/communicable consciousness to assent or object to such things—which makes it a sham. Which is interesting, because the biblical account commands (in the case of sexual intercourse) that the animal be put to death as well as the human being—and the animal, too, is culpable (“their blood is upon them”; Lev. 20:15-16).

That may explain the instructions that animals be killed in some cases in the conquest of Canaan.

I expect this desire of people to marry their pets will come out of the closet more and more in the future. There's nothing new under the sun.

no.where are you heading with this. i hope you are not equating allowing homosexuals to marry with men marrying goats? of course your not, that would be silly.

I am implying a slippery slop situation. You know that. And you come armed with excuses that I should not.

But I think the loss of self control in passion does go down a certain expected moral decline.

What I expect is arguments which are similar generalizations. ie. But black could not marry white until it was made legal in the US. Soooo ... this is the same prejudice - frowning upon humans marrying animals.

I expect those kinds of equations from some objectors.

and you are a douchebag for belittling gay people

Maybe you see it that way. But I firmly believe that "gay people" are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26,27). I believe that when I look at a "gay" man or woman they remind me of God in something in their inner being. That I think is a emblem of supreme dignity.

I also believe that Christ died for "gay" people and that the redemptive blood he shed for me is exactly the same blood He shed for homosexuals.

So I affirm the preciousness of all men and women according to God's creation and Christ's redemption. From what I have seen quite a few advocates of unbridled human passion and lust teach that men are only shaved apes.

So I would argue that Christian doctrine does more for the dignity of all men, gay or straight much more than the animalism of Darwinists.

But to be fair, my delivery in the OP probably was a little tainted with sarcasm which is not really expressive of Agape love.

What do I think?

I think that what you look up on youtube on your own spare time is your business.

I think the desire to marry an animal is a significant loss of self control in the area of human passion. It is unbridled passion which is really idolatry.

Why not submit the situation for discussion ? Isn't that what we often do? Something is noticed and brought up for comments.

Oh, Do I personally waste some time with YouTube ?? Yea, probably. The Lord's still has me as a work in progress.

Originally posted by sonship
I am implying a slippery slop situation. You know that. And you come armed with excuses that I should not.

Because the slippery slope argument is fundamentally flawed as a sole argument and its use must be fully justified for it to be any good.
I see the argument was so bad that you were even able to find objections to it yourself, although you haven't bothered to even address those objections even though you presumably thought them up before even starting the thread.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In the USA, I see the homosexual lifestyle more as being tolerated rather than being accepted. Human and animal marriage is not even tolerated here.

The Instructor

My suspicion is that the coming generation or two will witness man/animal marriages come out of the closet more.

I could be wrong. But I think the Bible is not naive and the decline of cultures in Canaan stand as a witness to the depths that humans can sink.

Skeptics, your children and your grand children will probably live in a world of "species orientation" marriages between people and their beloved pets. ( I don't mean RJhinds on this particular issue ).