On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:31:32 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Until that day, man is whatever
> gives sperm and woman whatever takes it to give birth to a new being.

So, a sterile man isn't a man and a woman who has had a hysterectomy is 
no longer a woman?

And those who are in that situation shouldn't be allowed to be married in 
the eyes of God?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:50:19 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
> >> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be
> >> able to get married if you can't have children?
> >
> > That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try
> > hard.
>
> You know, I'm going to try really hard not to take that personally,
> because some people are simply physically incapable of having kids.

I know that and they are the ones I'm talking about.  I don't know why you'd
take that personally as I don't know you sufficiently well nor was after
personal insults, Jim.

> Your lack of knowledge about the Mormon faith is pretty deep, it would
> seem.  Do you even know what Mormons believe?

I read the whole wikipedia article some months ago.  Very interesting.
Specially as it seems to be the first Holy Book covered by copyright!  I guess
L. Ron Hubbard got his inspiration...

All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental america,
it's a very american thing.

> Some say that Judiaism and Christianity are man-made myths.

Yes, like you and Darren, constantly. :)

> Defend that
> they're not and that Mormonism is - prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
> Christ didn't visit North America after he was crucified, but prove that
> he is in fact the Son of God.

Jesus is supposed to come back just at the end of times, why would he be roaming
about America?  Why would he come to the USA out of all places?  Does it have
bigger sins than other places on Earth?

It just doesn't make any sense.  Well, more than any other religion, anyway...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:16:30 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:50:19 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>
>> >> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be
>> >> able to get married if you can't have children?
>> >
>> > That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't
>> > try hard.
>>
>> You know, I'm going to try really hard not to take that personally,
>> because some people are simply physically incapable of having kids.
> 
> I know that and they are the ones I'm talking about.  I don't know why
> you'd take that personally as I don't know you sufficiently well nor was
> after personal insults, Jim.

Partly I was making a point.  You never know when you're damning specific 
people with generalities.

Personally, I don't care whether you think my marriage to my wife is 
"legitimate in the eyes of God" because we can't have children (mostly 
because I don't believe in your God, as we've discussed before), however 
I'm making the point that if the purpose of marriage is procreation, then 
(a) you exclude normal people like me, and (b) you really should be 
preaching about polygamy, since (1) it's more traditional than monogamy 
through history, and (2) you end up with a hell of a lot more procreation 
as a result.

>> Your lack of knowledge about the Mormon faith is pretty deep, it would
>> seem.  Do you even know what Mormons believe?
> 
> I read the whole wikipedia article some months ago.  Very interesting.
> Specially as it seems to be the first Holy Book covered by copyright!  I
> guess L. Ron Hubbard got his inspiration...

Holy shit, Wikipedia as an authoritative source on the entirely of a 
religion.   My mind boggles.

It's not like the Book of Mormon is hard to find - damned near every 
Marriott property includes a copy in every single room, after all.

> All in all, specially the inacurate "visions" of native continental
> america, it's a very american thing.

Mormonism started in America, but it's hardly an American thing any 
more.  Some Mormons serve missions in Israel, in fact.  I've got 
coworkers who have family serving missions in South America, and my 
wife's ex-husband served his in Finland.  It's everywhere.

As for "inaccurate visions", well, that's a matter of opinion and very 
much in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?  Kinda like the "visions" 
people in the OT had.

>> Some say that Judiaism and Christianity are man-made myths.
> 
> Yes, like you and Darren, constantly. :)

Oh, you noticed? ;-)

>> Defend that
>> they're not and that Mormonism is - prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
>> that Christ didn't visit North America after he was crucified, but
>> prove that he is in fact the Son of God.
> 
> Jesus is supposed to come back just at the end of times, why would he be
> roaming about America?  Why would he come to the USA out of all places? 
> Does it have bigger sins than other places on Earth?
> 
> It just doesn't make any sense.  Well, more than any other religion,
> anyway...

You'd have to ask a true-believing Mormon about that.  Personally, I 
think it's a great "life guide", and most Mormons I know very much more 
follow the golden rule (particularly compared to followers of other 
Christian faiths) and in general are much more tolerant of people with 
differing points of view.

"The Bible" as we know it today has been through a lot of changes over 
the years - books added and removed.  As I understand it, Mormons believe 
that the Book of Mormon is an extension of the Bible and that their text 
is consistent with the rest of the Bible.  I've not studied it 
extensively, but I've had discussions with people who do believe it, 
which I daresay is just a bit more knowledge about it than reading the 
entry on Wikipedia. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
>
> No, I'm sorry.   It's YAWEH doing it.   Obviously.

Are you sure?  I always thought the one in charge for getting obstacles in front
of you was Satan.  You either overcome them or get around them and continue your
way through another path.  Or you just sit and cry for the rest of your life.

> In any case, what difference does "trying hard" make? Does a gay person who
> "tries hard" to be straight and fail please God?

No, failures please Satan.

If a guy can't find love as a man, perhaps he should just forget sex and find
another path for happiness.  Sex is not an end, just a way.

> > It doesn't change the fact that they were given a role in this world
> > as men and are not fulfilling it.
>
> I'm so glad you have a direct line to God's mind, to know what role he has
> for each and every human on the planet.  Ask him for me where I can get a
> better job?  KTHXBYE.

I don't know my role, let alone yours or anyone else.  But I'm trying my best at
not looking like a third rate actor.

I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> What's the answer for hermaphrodites who want to marry another human
> being?  Who are they allowed to marry?  Who are they not allowed to marry?
>
> Be specific.

I think I answered before:  they were *given* choice.  Just choose a side.  Or
none.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
>> No, I'm sorry.   It's YAWEH doing it.   Obviously.
> 
> Are you sure?  I always thought the one in charge for getting obstacles in front
> of you was Satan. 

Nope. You're mistaken. Go re-read Job, for example. Or Genesis.

> I'm not sure you or Jim accept prayers for any help.

I have nothing against you praying to me for help, certainly.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
>> In any case, what difference does "trying hard" make? Does a gay person who
>> "tries hard" to be straight and fail please God?
> 
> No, failures please Satan.

So, when God makes you gay, and you try to be straight but fail, this 
displeases God?  Yet it's Satan putting obstacles in your way?

> If a guy can't find love as a man, perhaps he should just forget sex and find
> another path for happiness.  Sex is not an end, just a way.

Who said anything about sex?  You're telling me God makes some people gay, 
and he wants them not to live the love he put in their hearts? I thought 
Jesus said to love your neighbors and all that stuff?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Ok, bad joke asides, hermaphrodites are special cases.
>> And the answer to them is...?  :)
>>
>> I mean, that's the point, isn't it? The Bible doesn't special-case them, so
>> on what grounds do you make your decision, if you're denying gay marriage on
>> the grounds that God only creates unambiguously men and women?
> 
> Most gays are not hermaphrodites.
> 
> And I'm not denying gay marriage.  Go, live happily in their nature denial.
> 
Nemesis, simple reality, "gay" exists in all species over a certain 
level of complexity, including deer, dogs, cats, and penguins, etc. 
Every time someone mentions "denying nature" I know they have a weak 
grasp of the science of sexual selection, and are just "assuming" that 
there is some magic part of human (or other animals) natures that are 
somehow devoid of errors, flaws, deviation, or genetic influence. There 
are perfectly *valid* reasons why nature produces such things, including 
in **humans**. In humans, for example, there are clear indications that 
over-production of offspring is countered *directly* by the change in 
hormone levels in *each* pregnancy, which causes a direct and observable 
correlation with how likely it is that the "next" kid they have will be 
homosexual. Its not the only factor, but it seems to be a "strong" 
influence on the odds of them developing same sex attractions.

Another similar issue was found in deer populations, where it was found 
that aggressive females tended to mate less, and successfully raise 
"fewer" offspring, while passive males also mated less, but since male 
and female is "entirely" a result of a few missing genes, which *causes* 
a female body to "morph" into male during development, its functionally 
impossible to produce a species to produce all aggressive males and all 
passive females, instead of constantly trading off between the two, with 
inevitable outsiders, which range from "not quite as male or female as 
optimal", to, "so completely the wrong way around they don't produce 
'any' offspring."

Sexuality is a spectrum, which evolved to "try" to keep most people in 
the middle ground, where the tendency is to be 90% attracted to the 
opposite sex, but where mechanisms also "co-evolved" to limit over 
population, by "lowering" the odds of a viable male or female, if the 
female bearing the offspring produces too large of a population. You get 
someone that is the 8th child, who is mostly ignored and not constantly 
forced to be the right "sex", and *also" by chance happens to land in 
the category of having a too "female" a mind (i.e., like the over 
passive male deer), and your odds of them turning out "normal" just went 
from 98% to like 10%. Still possible, but only by, in that case, 
fighting an uphill battle with a sex drive that keeps telling them that 
they like males 90%, and women 10%, instead of the other way around.

Point is, nature doesn't produce "all male" or "all female" in anything 
much more complex than a moth, and I am not even sure those wouldn't 
exhibit some of the same sort of unstable trait drift (to maintain 
different behavior models for males and females) and population 
controls, which generates homosexual behavior in mammals. You simply 
can't use the same blueprint for 99% of the entire animal, which 
included 99% of what makes it "act" like such an animal, in the most 
general sense, they expect the other 1%, which has to define body form, 
differences in physical function, etc., to also "perfectly" designate 
psychological differences between sexes (despite its total inability to 
get the first part right and "always" get the shape right either).

And, with all due respect, Hermaphrodites have *tended* to have people 
choose "for them" based on how close they where to one or the other, and 
not on their actual DNA. It still, unfortunately, happens in some cases 
like that today, when we should know better. So, if they do end up one 
sex or the other, they may still end up the *wrong* one for their DNA, 
the *wrong* one for their sexual preferences, or *both*.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> It's not that.  According to Christian/Jewish religion, to the tale of Adam and
>>> Eve, God made man and woman and made them so that they complement each other
>>> and turn into one flesh by the institution of marriage.
>> The same God that said "go forth and multiply"? So you shouldn't be able to
>> get married if you can't have children?
> 
> That's a misunfortunate event for some couples, not like they don't try hard.
> 
> Oh, you're talking about 2 guys!  Well, science eventually will get around that.
>  Science already permit many men to pretend they are women, by taking away the
> penis, slashing away a vagina and drinking many hormonal beverages for the
> breasts.  It doesn't change the fact that they were given a role in this world
> as men and are not fulfilling it.
> 
>> We're not talking about religion here. We're talking about fundamental human
>> rights.
> 
> Right.
> 
>> The Mormon god says Africans are decedents of Satan or some such.
>> Does that mean we should reinstitute segregation?
> 
> No, Mormonism is a man-made myth.  OTOH, in the Old Testment YAWEH ordened many
> tribes to be slaghtered by the Jews.  It seems they still listen to an enraged
> YAWEH even to this day.
> 
And, if you trace that name back a bit farther than the fracking Babble, 
you find that Yaweh is the third son of the one true God, who made all 
things. Yaweh was also a warmonger, and assigned to rule over one 
kingdom in the ancient world, at least up until all three of the sons 
screwed up their collective kingdoms and "daddy" took rule of them all 
back. Your point is what exactly? That a large number of people have no 
bloody clue what the pre-history of their own religion is, or deny it, 
but insist that the whole thing is the word of their God and nothing 
prior to Genesis was ever written? Hardly a rousing endorsement for its 
prominence as the one true rule book of life, never mind dominance in 
modern society (which has more to do with persecution complexes, where 
by, by its own rules, every time someone points out that your are an 
idiot, you are justified in your faith, because only persecuted people 
know the "true word of the lord"). Sorry, but I don't think most people 
bought that BS when Christians where 1% of those that rules society, now 
that they are 90%+ of the ruling class, it just makes the ones saying it 
look like whiny idiots, and makes people question if its worth believing 
in the first place.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Clergy here can not do a civil marriage, so that is different. My
>> parents married in the church more than 5 months after their civil
>> marriage. I don't know how (un)common that was in those days.
> 
> That is an interesting difference.

	Isn't it the same in the US? For the government to recognize a
marriage, it has to be registered. Isn't the use of religious figures
just a cultural move that has no legal significance?

(Unmarried person asking)

-- 
"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message