Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3 in 1 for wdwilder. was: Same two questions

Expand Messages
  • grant hallman
    ... hardly means we should promote dead dogs as adoptive parents. Nothing beats the biblical two parent family with both male and female to produce a stable
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:12 AM 29-02-04 EST, you wrote:
      >In a message dated 2/29/04 4:48:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      unilogic@... writes:
      >
      >now recognize that some gays are better
      >parents than some straights, and that your impression of gays has very
      >
      > A dead dog could be a better parent then "some straights" but that
      hardly means we should promote dead dogs as adoptive parents. Nothing
      beats the biblical two parent family with both male and female to produce a
      stable balanced child who will be able to have and raise stable balanced
      children and so on and so on.

      Hi, wdwilder:

      I happen to agree that 2 parents, male and female, is likely better than
      other combinations. I do /not/ agree that that gives the state the right to
      deny parenting to single or gay families. I do not want to see the state in
      charge of parenting, except intervening in cases of egregious abuse.

      Now if you'd reply to my two questions (Q1 and Q2), i'd know what u think
      on the matter.

      At 09:36 AM 29-02-04 EST, you wrote:
      >
      >In a message dated 2/29/04 4:48:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      unilogic@... writes:
      >
      >Unsurprisingly, the
      >author of that gem was unresponsive to my protest that homosexual behavior
      >is found in many animals, and is thus by no stretch "un-natural".
      >
      >I didn't read it but I will repond First you assume that what is natural
      for animals is natural for thinking human being therefore it is natural to
      eat your young or to eat ones fecal matter as some dogs and apes do at
      times ete. So sorry I do not believe this Man is not a mere animal but a
      creature with more than a physical body also a conscience self aware Mind
      and a divine spark, a spirit .

      Well, by the numbers:

      (1) i assume only that "natural" means "as observed in the natural world".
      Your definition seems to be something like "something that doesn't makes me
      personally go 'ick'". Perhaps u could define what u meant by the term.

      (2) The general topic may in your mind have been "what behavior is
      appropriate for humans", but i was commenting on the very specific claim
      that homnosexuality is "unnatural". It's not, not by any usual definition
      of the word.

      > if you not do believe this show me an poem by an ape( not a train mimic
      like those signing apes either) a dog that writes music what is on the
      bestsellers list of animal books anywhy I know what Book is alway the best
      seller for humans you should read it some time.

      You seem to be arguing with someone else. U seem upset as tho i claim that
      because homosexual behavior is "natural" it is therefore "good". I didn't
      make that assertion. Ruptured appendix is "natural", doesn't make it "good"
      and surgery "bad". I /did/ claim that if homosexual behavior is "bad", it's
      not bad because it's "unnatural". If you're gonna be offended by something
      i say, please at least make it something i actually said.

      One final point, about "mere" animals vs. humans. Disclaimer - i'm a
      carnivore, i'm not a PETA member, i've been known to hunt, my wife wears
      fur, and i support humane use of animals in research. But wish as i might,
      i cannot find in the Bible the black and white distinction between humans
      and animals u seem to. The very same language (even in Hebrew, i've been
      told) is used to describe God creating humans and whales and birds. If u
      (or anyone) has such a ref, the clearer the better, i'd be interested in
      seeing it.

      **late bulletin**

      I later noticed u defined natural as "natural means conforming to divine
      law -- leading to true happiness". That sort of clears this up. In fact i
      like that def, it's what i understand by "Follow the Bliss" :)

      At 09:19 AM 29-02-04 EST, you wrote:
      >
      >In a message dated 2/29/04 4:48:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      unilogic@... writes:
      >
      >
      >AIDS is punishment for homosexuality. Engage in "unnatural
      >
      >
      >Paraphasing me but I Never said it was a punishment--just a natural
      concequence and not just Gays but heteros too, try jumping of a cliff does
      God punish one because one is crushed at the bottom.

      Huh - oddly, u didn't use the cliff as an example when we were talking
      about gays. But, i'll extend the benefit of the doubt, if u will simply
      affirm that you do not believe God set AIDS in the world as a punishment
      for gays. Will u in fact affirm that?

      I will offer this further inducement for letting go of the idea. I've seen
      the effect of that message on dying gay men, i can tell u it can be more
      damaging than u know, on many levels, and has exactly the opposite effect
      as far as drawing someone closer to God.

      And this for reflection: i read Jn.3:19, and wonder whether /all/ God's
      judgement is of the nature u describe.

      cheers - grant

      PS: Feb.27, post 2 of 2
    • Paul
      ... Paul: The very same verb may be used but what does that prove? If you want to find a distinction start with the first chapter in the Bible. Genesis 1
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        > One final point, about "mere" animals vs. humans.
        > Disclaimer - i'm a
        > carnivore, i'm not a PETA member, i've been known
        > to hunt, my wife wears
        > fur, and i support humane use of animals in
        > research. But wish as i might,
        > i cannot find in the Bible the black and white
        > distinction between humans
        > and animals u seem to. The very same language (even
        > in Hebrew, i've been
        > told) is used to describe God creating humans and
        > whales and birds. If u
        > (or anyone) has such a ref, the clearer the better,
        > i'd be interested in seeing it.

        Paul: The very same verb may be used but what does
        that prove? If you want to find a distinction start
        with the first chapter in the Bible. Genesis 1
        Chapters 27 & 28.

        27: So God created people in his own image; God
        patterned them after himself; male and female he
        created them.

        28: God blessed them and told them, "Multiply and fill
        the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and
        birds and all the animals."
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.