Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
Life After Brown
California Supreme Court overturns ban on Gay marriage!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 341168" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>When it comes to fully informed, consenting adults who are not under force or fraud, I feel they should be free to do as they see fit and live as they see fit. When it comes to kids, it violates the first principle of the parties being adults among other issues. </p><p> </p><p>When it comes to dogs, obviously the problem is first determining consent and also you can't determine if or how force was involved. Breaking a dog for example from using your livingroom rug as a toilet may require a bit of force in order to train a dog for being house broke and so it may be with some other human interactions.</p><p> </p><p>As for having multiple wives, I believe you've been a fairly stnadard defender of all things biblical so what's the problem. If it's good enough for Abraham and the boyz, then why the objection now? Or is this another case of where the "All Knowing, Unchanging God" of your's changed the rules of the game again?</p><p> </p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /> That was very unchristian of me wasn't it!</p><p> </p><p>Besides, how many men have several "girlfriends" on the side in whom they string em' along for the sex and when the lady needs them, they are no where to be found. At least multi-wives (or let's not leave the ladies out) multi-husbands, everyone's under one roof, above board and the one enjoying a different thrill every night is on the hook as a responsible party.</p><p> </p><p>I happen to believe in the one man/one woman principle if you will or in the case of same sex partners, a totally monogamous relationship. Cervical cancer is known to be caused by a virus and one source that this virus is spread is sex via multiple partners. It's also not a settled point if in this case, the male, becomes a carrier or if the virus has some long term effect on the male as of yet not identified by medicine. </p><p> </p><p>Nature or natural law IMO enforces monogamy as when you step outside the arena, the risk of disease is vastly enhanced the farther you run afield from monogamy. We've cheated natural law with such things as condoms and I advocate their use if you plan to do so but I also believe as I said that nature steers us towards monogamous relationships all on it's own but the question is whether we see it for what it is?</p><p> </p><p>JM "unchristian" O!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 341168, member: 2189"] When it comes to fully informed, consenting adults who are not under force or fraud, I feel they should be free to do as they see fit and live as they see fit. When it comes to kids, it violates the first principle of the parties being adults among other issues. When it comes to dogs, obviously the problem is first determining consent and also you can't determine if or how force was involved. Breaking a dog for example from using your livingroom rug as a toilet may require a bit of force in order to train a dog for being house broke and so it may be with some other human interactions. As for having multiple wives, I believe you've been a fairly stnadard defender of all things biblical so what's the problem. If it's good enough for Abraham and the boyz, then why the objection now? Or is this another case of where the "All Knowing, Unchanging God" of your's changed the rules of the game again? :happy-very: That was very unchristian of me wasn't it! Besides, how many men have several "girlfriends" on the side in whom they string em' along for the sex and when the lady needs them, they are no where to be found. At least multi-wives (or let's not leave the ladies out) multi-husbands, everyone's under one roof, above board and the one enjoying a different thrill every night is on the hook as a responsible party. I happen to believe in the one man/one woman principle if you will or in the case of same sex partners, a totally monogamous relationship. Cervical cancer is known to be caused by a virus and one source that this virus is spread is sex via multiple partners. It's also not a settled point if in this case, the male, becomes a carrier or if the virus has some long term effect on the male as of yet not identified by medicine. Nature or natural law IMO enforces monogamy as when you step outside the arena, the risk of disease is vastly enhanced the farther you run afield from monogamy. We've cheated natural law with such things as condoms and I advocate their use if you plan to do so but I also believe as I said that nature steers us towards monogamous relationships all on it's own but the question is whether we see it for what it is? JM "unchristian" O! :wink2: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
Life After Brown
California Supreme Court overturns ban on Gay marriage!
Top