Re: Switching fag babies condemned by fags

YumYumPandaburger wrote:

On 16 mrt, 15:41, Mark Goldberg <msgoldb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

GreendistantNOSPAMstar wrote:


Others point out that it should not matter, that love is love etc.

But apparently when an agnostic sees these issues, it's somehow different.

How's that work again?

why not read the reply I sent to your original post... I disagree with
your bull***, 'love is love' belief. It most certainly explains
nothing, defines nothing, and is worth just that.... nothing.

Oh, pedophiles love little boys. They do love them.
Love is love??


That's just a false comparison.

Pedophilia is abuse, one party wants something that the other party
doesn't want (or is to young to be able to decide whether he/she wants
it or not). It is a sort of rape or sexual torture, even worse because
the victim is almost completely defenseless by definition. Nobody sain
would define this as "love"

Two gays making out is their own business. It doesn't interest me one
bit as long as they keep their private stuff private and out of my
face.

But the comparison was too show the obvious. That 'love is love' is absurd. And the absurdity is that the heterosexual 'love is love' has no more value than the homosexual use of that syllogism.

Oh...I don't give a hoot what people do in private either. In the thread about the abuse of kids, I quoted a person of obvious character, of reason and integrity, who happens to be a lesbian. I don't care what she desires in her privacy, and so said she about privacy... that it should be private.

But these commandments weren't suggestions when they came down. And that history I think people are ignorant of, and about. Think about it.

The injunctions against 'love is love' was based upon far more far reaching ideas that preventing people from sucking face in the middle of the street. Spiro notes...


"...Of all the principles we might list, the basic right to life seems certainly the most fundamental. We all want to live without fear of being arbitrarily deprived of life. We all want to live with a certain minimal amount of human dignity. We all want certain protection in the law against oppression by tyrants who might consider certain segments of society expendable simply because they are too weak or too poor to protect themselves.

"...As obvious and important as this concept seems to us today, it was not so obvious or important in the world of antiquity.

"...To begin with, Greeks and Romans -- as well as virtually every ancient culture we know of -- practiced infanticide.

"...By infanticide, I mean the killing of newborn children as a way of population control, sex selection (generally, boys were desirable, girls undesirable), and as a way of ridding society of potentially burdensome or deformed members.

"...A baby that appeared weak or sickly at birth, or had even a minor birth defect such a cleft pallet, hair lip, or cleft foot, or was in some other way imperfect was killed. This was not done by some Nazi-like baby removal squad. This was done by an immediate member of the family, usually the mother or father, and usually within three days after birth.

"...As historians noted, that whole transformation brought respect for Human Life. In a perfect world, all people would be guaranteed certain basic human rights, paramount among which must be the right to life. They should be able to live that life without constant fear of its loss and with certain basic dignity.

The Torah innovated the idea of education for all. It specifically commanded parents to educate their children. [Deut. 6:7] In fact, a code of law as intricate as the Torah and as obligatory on all members of the society, inherently demanded study. If a Jew didn't know what all the commandments entailed, how could he fulfill them? Thus mass education was a Torah-mandated value throughout Jewish history, causing the medieval monk Peter Abelhard to write: "A Jew, however poor, even if he had ten sons, would put them all to letters, not for gain as the Christians do, but for understanding of God's law. And not only his sons, but his daughters."

Okay, so that's the scope... but you say, 'hey, if a *** wants to suck pipe, let them'

Yeah, okay, so in private let them. The same system as above was interested in creating a society and people capable of much more than just greasing up and squirting over themselves.
There are limits and restrictions.... but in private, yeah, others can live free.

However, the entire discussion about how 'bigoted' the Torah is because it prohibits this or that, never ever, you will note, ever
takes into consideration of what the world 'commanded' before and even after those prohibitions. That's why I always was fond of it being never
a goal to impose it on others, but to be an example of what it could do for humans and society. It wasn't encroaching on others, as others wanted to and now, very much wish to encroach upon it.

Mark
.