Cynic

Trefor, As it might concern an intelligent debate on issues, this thread -- through no doing of yours -- appears to be dead. Another day.

. [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 10:42.]

I intend to do some investigation of Garth's links, though on a cursory reading only one of the links seemed relevant to the question at hand. For tentative consideration, here's another: http://www.modernreformation.org/mr92/mara...9202geneva.html

Rocky, Rocky, Rocky: It's "abstruse."

Garth, You possibly are going to face my bringing up your blood-libels every time you get in my face. You finally have provided some links, however, which, despite their possible imprecision, is quite an accomplishment for such a lazy little a$$ hole as you.

That's yours and mine.

Rocky, I like Excathedra, but I decided to respond to her disruptive questioning and railing with a guttural get-off-my-case. I doubt that you would agree with the result of our comparative psychological soundness being evaluated by a competent professional.

As usual, Garth cites no sources to support his accusations.

Garth, Any progress on finding 23 additional victims of John Calvin? Or, are you still cruising with the intellectual vitality of a lazy fabricator? Which is it, Punk?

You don't seem to be able to stand seeing Trefor being challenged on his arguments. I'm not stopping.

To you.

. [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:05.]

Or oppose it because of its lack of societal usefulness.

I do not wish to compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

Trefor, Why should homosexual relationships be grouped with heterosexual relationships, rather than with relationships historically viewed as aberrant in biblically influenced cultures, for the purposes of assigning legal standing?

Scripture is my ultimate rule of faith and practice.

No. I'll talk how I want. If this discussion disturbs you, pass on to some other one.

Interesting piece. "The Biblical Source of Western Sexual Morality," by Peter J. Leithart. http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm07_leithart.html ***** Quoted from that piece: "This brief glance at the structure of sexual mores in two pre-Christian civilizations suffices to prove the point: Biblical sexual morality is not universally defended and practiced in all societies. The sexual morality that has served as a foundation of Western civilization is a product of Christianity. Given the fact that sexual issues so deeply disturb contemporary society, it is essential for Christians self-consciously to defend Biblical morality, not some vague 'traditional morality' or 'traditional family values.'"

QQ, My use of the word polygyny was quite intentional. http://www.onelook.com/?w=polygyny&ls=a

Trefor continues to compare the disparity of legal statuses between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriages, and fails to show why polygyny should not be governmentally sanctioned, while homosexual relationships ride to state recognition behind a banner of liberty and equality.

Ex, I am opposing the invoking of equality and liberty as a basis for myopically evaluating whether or not states should recognize homosexual relationships as "marriages." I have not appealed to the Constitution, and deem that document something that is quite far from having been divinely spirated.

If the consideration is merely economic, shouldn't would-be polygynists who could demonstrate sufficient fiscal capabilities have all the unions they might want and are able to support fully recognized as marriages by the states -- in the interest of equality and liberty?

Zixar appears to be aiming at the uncritical sloganeering of Trefor's appeals to equality and liberty by demonstrating that equality and liberty could not reasonably be deemed controlling evaluative factors for all situations and issues.

If an appeal to equality and liberty should be sufficient for an agenda to obtain state recognition for homosexual "marriages," why should a numerical issue matter when it comes to polygyny?

Anyone care to argue why appeals to equality and liberty should advance as compelling a cause for full legal recognition of homosexual relationships, but should not advance as compelling a cause for full legal recognition of polygyny?