Originally posted by foudroyant
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Bestiality: Can an animal "consent"?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostActually, no it wasn't. The argument was against mixing the white "race" with any other non-white "race". There was never any laws against a Hispanic and a black mating.
The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and divided society into only two classifications: white and colored (essentially all other, which included numerous American Indians). It defined race by the "one-drop rule", defining as "colored" persons with any African or Native American ancestry. There was an exception made for the ancestors of Pocahontas, as many of the powerful First Families of Virginia" (FFV) counted her as a direct ancestor. As new groups began to immigrate, such as from China, India, and South America, they were all included in the "colored" classification, and could intermarry without penalty, as long as they didn't marry a European white.Last edited by Mr. Anderson; 06-29-2014, 08:41 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View PostWell where did the derogatory term half-breed that denigrated an infant into the lower castes of society come from then? What your presenting is the law of the land as produced by a dominate white society. Every one of the ethnic groups had their own ethnic tradition of non-acceptance to mixed sexual as well as marital relations. Many still do. And in some of them sexual relations with a white person is seen as atrocious as bestiality and may even have more societal repercussions than bestiality.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostThat just opens up a new can of worms due to the discrepancies between Biblical tenets and common worldwide morals.
....."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostNo, it doesn't. You're confusing moral laws with ceremonial and administrative. There really aren't any major cultures that thing cold blooded murder is an okay thing.
If you're talking about "thou shalt not kill", that's a problem in itself. Christians have spent millennia finding ways to excuse the killing they are doing to the point where such a simple commandment has caveat after caveat. That's the nature of religious law. It's interpreted to mean whatever is convenient.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostHow am I confusing moral laws with ceremonial and administrative laws?
If you're talking about "thou shalt not kill", that's a problem in itself. Christians have spent millennia finding ways to excuse the killing they are doing to the point where such a simple commandment has caveat after caveat. That's the nature of religious law. It's interpreted to mean whatever is convenient.
Now I'm not going to argue that Christians over the years have not looked for loopholes there where they shouldn't have, of course."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostIt seems the bigger elephant would be those that reject the consent argument as valid. Still, I think it obvious that survival trumps consent."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post"Thou shalt not kill" is not an accurate translation; the word in question refers specifically to what we would translate as something like cold-blooded murder. Considering the prohibition is presented alongside other laws, some of which include the institution of a death penalty, it would be internally inconsistent to interpret it as a blanket prohibition against killing.
Now I'm not going to argue that Christians over the years have not looked for loopholes there where they shouldn't have, of course.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostEven then there's disagreement over what old testament laws apply today, what constitutes murder or however you wish to define the word translated as kill in the KJV, and whether thou shalt not kill/cold-blooded murder and the allowances that implies is superceded by NT law (for example, with Christian pacifists)."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostEven then there's disagreement over what old testament laws apply today, what constitutes murder or however you wish to define the word translated as kill in the KJV, and whether thou shalt not kill/cold-blooded murder and the allowances that implies is superceded by NT law (for example, with Christian pacifists).Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostHow am I confusing moral laws with ceremonial and administrative laws?
If you're talking about "thou shalt not kill", that's a problem in itself. Christians have spent millennia finding ways to excuse the killing they are doing to the point where such a simple commandment has caveat after caveat. That's the nature of religious law. It's interpreted to mean whatever is convenient.
And the issue you're actually bringing up is one of 'identifiers' - people who identify themselves as A but do not share the same values/beliefs/behaviors. The RINO/DINO things are examples of this. Calling yourself A doesn't make you the same as those who truly hold the values, et al, of A - so unless you can show that such behavior is typical of Christianity (as in prove, not state) then the point is not valid for our present purposes (tells us nothing about God's laws and humanity - the topic)."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by foudroyant View PostFirst off, it sickens me to even have to write about something like this but with the mind-set of anything goes and don't discriminate about anything in the USA here goes...
What is the justification for outlawing bestiality? What if the animal "consents"? True it can not be verbalized but what if the animal doesn't seem to mind and the person doing so claims their "right" to engage in such an (abominable) activity?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Clue up.
Years ago when discussing "gay rights" with those that say it's ok for them to be married I pointed out that why not allow polygamy? I thought what could be next or possibly in conjunction with what was next? After or during the same time *if* bestiality is one day approved what else? It's a frightening scenario.
Comment
-
Originally posted by foudroyant View PostClue up.
Years ago when discussing "gay rights" with those that say it's ok for them to be married I pointed out that why not allow polygamy? I thought what could be next or possibly in conjunction with what was next? After or during the same time *if* bestiality is one day approved what else? It's a frightening scenario.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seanD, Today, 04:10 AM
|
16 responses
89 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 01:13 PM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 04:44 AM
|
13 responses
85 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 05:15 AM
|
||
Started by Ronson, 04-30-2024, 03:40 PM
|
10 responses
73 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 04:58 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 04-30-2024, 09:33 AM
|
16 responses
81 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 12:27 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-30-2024, 09:11 AM
|
82 responses
437 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 03:26 PM
|
Comment