Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 98

Thread: If the gays can do it.....

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893

    If the gays can do it.....

    One contributor called for a ban on marrying horses to be lifted. The writer said: 'I have been going out with a horse for seven - very happy - years now. Why oh why can we not marry - or at least civilly partner like the gays can?'


    Nick Clegg launches Freedom Bill to cut red tape and reduce nanny state | Mail Online


    Why not?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    One contributor called for a ban on marrying horses to be lifted. The writer said: 'I have been going out with a horse for seven - very happy - years now. Why oh why can we not marry - or at least civilly partner like the gays can?'


    Nick Clegg launches Freedom Bill to cut red tape and reduce nanny state | Mail Online


    Why not?
    Simple! The horse cannot legally consent to the marriage.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by smiley View Post
    Simple! The horse cannot legally consent to the marriage.
    Of course they can.
    One scrape of the hoof for yes..two for no

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Of course they can.
    One scrape of the hoof for yes..two for no
    You call that legal consent?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,073
    It'd be clearer than the consent to half the contracts around...

    Anyway, unless it harms others, let him. Just make sure A) the horse is not abused, per general animal care standards B) he knows the potential dangers of consummating the "marriage" C) realizes that the horse is not going to be granted the legal status of a person, so any wills better start a trust D) builds a TALL fence witn NO windows around the house
    Last edited by Iuris; 07-03-2010 at 08:46 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by smiley View Post
    You call that legal consent?
    If the law said it was sufficient then it would be legal consent.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by smiley View Post
    But their marriages (or extra-marital relationships) were not something god made 'all hell break loose' about.
    Have you ever read the Bible, preppie?

    From 2 Samuel 12: (the Lord speaking):

    Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

    11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "

    13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."
    Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, [a] the son born to you will die."

    15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

    18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."

    19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked.
    "Yes," they replied, "he is dead."

    No go study up on Adultery in the Bible.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Have you ever read the Bible, preppie?

    From 2 Samuel 12: (the Lord speaking):

    Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

    11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "

    13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."
    Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, [a] the son born to you will die."

    15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

    18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."

    19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked.
    "Yes," they replied, "he is dead."

    No go study up on Adultery in the Bible.
    Who mentioned adultery?

    We were talking about marriage.

    Take a look at 2 Samuel 2. The Lord tells David to go to Hebron, so he goes with his TWO WIVES and is then anointed king over the house of Judah. No fireballs, no slapped wrist, nothing.

    In fact David is going from strength to strength (and a lot more besides). In 2 Samuel 5, he conquers Jerusalem, where he takes more concubines and wives (vs 13). Then, a few verses latre he conquers the Phiistines, with the Lord's blessing (vs 19).

    2 Samuel 8 lists his victories, with no mention of god's wrath regarding his multuple marriages, concubines etc.

    2 Samuel 10 he defeats the Ammonites.

    It isn't until 2 Samuel 11, when he knocks up Bathsheba (the adultery you speal of) that god gets a bit tetchy. An then 2 Samuel 12 when he finally says something about it.

    But wait, by 2 Samuel 19 David is back in Jerusalem, king again. What a short memory your god must have. Take a look at verse 5:-

    5 Then Joab went into the house to the king and said, "Today you have humiliated all your men, who have just saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters and the lives of your wives and concubines.

    He's still got all those wives and concubines, but god is back on his side. No fireballs or anything.

    In 2 Samuel 20 vs 3 he still has 10 concubines.

    2 Samuel 21, still beating Philistines.

    And don't let me get going about Solomon. Take a look at 1 Kings 11 (first few verses).

    So, don't give me any of that rubbish about god not approving of these multiple marriages. It was only the adultery that he got peeved about. And he forgot about that one pretty quickly too.

    Perhaps you should give your bible another looking over.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Homosexuals need to redefine marriage because they can never actually consumate it..bum fun does not a consumation make.
    So why cant a man marry his horse without actually needing to have sex with it?
    Wierd, stupid maybe..50 years ago the idea that two homosexuals could take themselves up the aisle would be considered just as ridiculous

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Homosexuals need to redefine marriage because they can never actually consumate it..bum fun does not a consumation make.
    So why cant a man marry his horse without actually needing to have sex with it?
    Wierd, stupid maybe..50 years ago the idea that two homosexuals could take themselves up the aisle would be considered just as ridiculous
    And 150 years ago a black man marrying a white woman would have been considered the same. What's your point?
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Bennett View Post
    And 150 years ago a black man marrying a white woman would have been considered the same. What's your point?
    Cant you read?
    If you are correct this actually supports my point.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Cant you read?
    If you are correct this actually supports my point.
    I can read, you're not being clear.

    It seems like you're trying to say that because one thing was unacceptable in the past and is acceptable now, then something else forbidden will also become acceptable. Pretty sure that's called the slippery slope fallacy. There is no direct extension of the logic that two consenting adults in a long term romantic relationship ought to be able to marry to saying that someone ought to be able to marry a non-sentient and therefore non-consenting animal. It seems like you're trying to denigrate gay couples by attempting a reductio ad absurdum and failing.
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Bennett View Post
    I can read, you're not being clear.

    It seems like you're trying to say that because one thing was unacceptable in the past and is acceptable now, then something else forbidden will also become acceptable. Pretty sure that's called the slippery slope fallacy. There is no direct extension of the logic that two consenting adults in a long term romantic relationship ought to be able to marry to saying that someone ought to be able to marry a non-sentient and therefore non-consenting animal. It seems like you're trying to denigrate gay couples by attempting a reductio ad absurdum and failing.
    You get it wrong and try a strawman argument to save face..nice.
    It seems......

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2
    Boy are sensible.Sometime, they become arogant but they are not that much rude that they can do that. Perhaps, boys with sexual de satisfaction can do anything. From my point of view, one can opt escorts. Beatiful escorts can be found at London Escorts.
    http://www.suredelights.co.uk

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by smiley View Post
    Who mentioned adultery?

    We were talking about marriage.

    Take a look at 2 Samuel 2. The Lord tells David to go to Hebron, so he goes with his TWO WIVES and is then anointed king over the house of Judah. No fireballs, no slapped wrist, nothing.

    In fact David is going from strength to strength (and a lot more besides). In 2 Samuel 5, he conquers Jerusalem, where he takes more concubines and wives (vs 13). Then, a few verses latre he conquers the Phiistines, with the Lord's blessing (vs 19).

    2 Samuel 8 lists his victories, with no mention of god's wrath regarding his multuple marriages, concubines etc.

    2 Samuel 10 he defeats the Ammonites.

    It isn't until 2 Samuel 11, when he knocks up Bathsheba (the adultery you speal of) that god gets a bit tetchy. An then 2 Samuel 12 when he finally says something about it.

    But wait, by 2 Samuel 19 David is back in Jerusalem, king again. What a short memory your god must have. Take a look at verse 5:-

    5 Then Joab went into the house to the king and said, "Today you have humiliated all your men, who have just saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters and the lives of your wives and concubines.

    He's still got all those wives and concubines, but god is back on his side. No fireballs or anything.

    In 2 Samuel 20 vs 3 he still has 10 concubines.

    2 Samuel 21, still beating Philistines.

    And don't let me get going about Solomon. Take a look at 1 Kings 11 (first few verses).

    So, don't give me any of that rubbish about god not approving of these multiple marriages. It was only the adultery that he got peeved about. And he forgot about that one pretty quickly too.

    Perhaps you should give your bible another looking over.
    That's pathetic.

    Way, way back in Genesis when Adam and Eve were brought together it says "the two will become one flesh." Not three, not two plus a horse and a cow, and not two guys or two women. A man and a woman.

    What's more, you are evidently completely ignorant of Deuteronomy 17:17 - "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray." That was speaking of the King, and certainly applies later to David and Solomon and others as well.

    And that pretty much demolishes your whole rant.

    And I'll say back to you what you wrote above: Perhaps you should give your bible another looking over. Have you read the WHOLE Bible?
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •