Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Stop House Bill 1547  (Read 8040 times)

JbbF

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Stop House Bill 1547
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2016, 07:04:58 pm »

I saw a study recently, the conclusion was that sex with children isn't necessarily harmful to the child. That's the first step in legalizing/normalizing pedophilia.  Should moral, decent people standby and accept this? Where does it end. There IS a moral "right" and "wrong"  and there was a time when laws were derived from standards of morality.  We have gotten so far from this as a nation that we now have to make laws about having sex with animals. Something that wouldn't have even entered the cultural zeitgeist a few decades ago. That's evidence of some serious moral decay.

This is a fallacy. Animals are not equivalent to younger humans. For example, younger humans are not put in cages, they are not put in kennels, they are not spayed/neutered, they are not slaughtered for meat, and they are not trained by police to look for explosives. There is no equivalency. Also, you are citing the "slippery slope" argument, which is yet another fallacy.

You are also saying that interspecies sex is immoral, which is not true. Interspecies sex, whether it involves a human or not, is not "immoral", so it is therefore not "moral decay". Just as it isn't wrong for a giraffe to have interspecies sex with a pig, it is also not wrong for a human to have interspecies sex with a pig.

Also, what you said about being "far from morality" is what people would've said about homosexuality in the early 20th century.
Logged

Cp4056

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: Stop House Bill 1547
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2016, 07:08:29 pm »

What I said, is that I get my moral law from a higher authority, homosexuality is still wrong, regardless of whether or not it is socially acceptable at the time. Note that I am not anti homosexuals, just anti homosexuality.  Interspecies sex is immoral, even if we wish it wasn't.
Logged

JbbF

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Stop House Bill 1547
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2016, 08:51:47 pm »

What I said, is that I get my moral law from a higher authority, homosexuality is still wrong, regardless of whether or not it is socially acceptable at the time. Note that I am not anti homosexuals, just anti homosexuality.  Interspecies sex is immoral, even if we wish it wasn't.

There is no "higher authority". Morality is relative, and is determined by rationality and ethics. In the case of interspecies sex, it is not immoral because one can rationally come to the conclusion (based on what has already been said in this topic) that it is not immoral. Humans have the free will to decide for themselves what is moral/immoral, and they should decide that zoosexual sex is not immoral.
Logged

Cp4056

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: Stop House Bill 1547
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2016, 09:20:45 pm »

     I like that we are able to have a civil discussion while so far apart in our views, that said, really? Morality is relative? That kind of logic leads to a abuse. So Hitler wasn't inherently wrong, humans can decide that rape is acceptable? After all.. In the animal world.. The female of the species don't always necessarily consent to bring bred. We don't decide what's moral, well.. Society does, but it's decisions are irrelevant. There IS a right and a wrong. They are explained in scripture. Take a look at Romans 1:20 and the following few verses
     
Logged

Cp4056

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: Stop House Bill 1547
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2016, 09:24:11 pm »

Also, you said animals weren't equivalent to younger humans, why? If you believe we are just animals- what makes us more important? If you acknowledge we are superior, were more than animals and there is a God
Logged

JbbF

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Stop House Bill 1547
« Reply #50 on: January 01, 2017, 03:04:38 pm »

     I like that we are able to have a civil discussion while so far apart in our views, that said, really? Morality is relative? That kind of logic leads to a abuse. So Hitler wasn't inherently wrong, humans can decide that rape is acceptable? After all.. In the animal world.. The female of the species don't always necessarily consent to bring bred. We don't decide what's moral, well.. Society does, but it's decisions are irrelevant. There IS a right and a wrong. They are explained in scripture. Take a look at Romans 1:20 and the following few verses
   

Morality is relative, but people use rationality to determine whether something is moral or not; in the case of Hitler, people have determined his actions to be immoral.

When humans are interacting with a non-human animal sexually, "consent" is not relevant, just as "consent" is not relevant sexually when two non-humans have sex with each other. Morality is determined by whether harm/injury occurs. Artificial insemination and spaying/neutering do not involve animal's "consent", but interspecies sex (involving a human) involves "consent" by observing the animal's body language.

Regarding scripture: there is no God, at least in the manner in which humans define "God", so "scripture" is irrelevant.

Quote
Also, you said animals weren't equivalent to younger humans, why? If you believe we are just animals- what makes us more important? If you acknowledge we are superior, were more than animals and there is a God

Humans are animals, but species difference and age difference are two totally separate topics. I already explained the matter in the previous post. And humans are not superior, they are animals just like all other animal species.

As I said before, one has a right to their religious beliefs, but the New Hampshire government does not have a right to ban sex with animals (an unconstitutional ban) based on their prejudices and irrational views of "morality".

« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 03:17:05 pm by JbbF »
Logged

Cp4056

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: Stop House Bill 1547
« Reply #51 on: January 01, 2017, 03:19:58 pm »

Humans, made in the image of God- who created us, the world, and all it contains- we are carbon life forms, but so much more than animals.  When Job endured his trials, and all he had was lost- God replaced his possessions two fold. Twice as many animals, but the same number of children. I propose that this is because the children still exist as spiritual beings beyond this life, where the animals, not made in His image don't.  If there is a God would you change your views? Its there a chance that you hold to your"no god" mantra because it would prove very inconvenient for your sexual preferences?
Logged

JbbF

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Stop House Bill 1547
« Reply #52 on: January 01, 2017, 03:38:40 pm »

Humans, made in the image of God- who created us, the world, and all it contains- we are carbon life forms, but so much more than animals.  When Job endured his trials, and all he had was lost- God replaced his possessions two fold. Twice as many animals, but the same number of children. I propose that this is because the children still exist as spiritual beings beyond this life, where the animals, not made in His image don't.  If there is a God would you change your views? Its there a chance that you hold to your"no god" mantra because it would prove very inconvenient for your sexual preferences?

No, humans are just animals (in a moral way, in addition to a biological way). To answer your last question, my views about religion are separate from my views about sexuality, though I strongly disagree with the "moral values" of some religions. Besides, why does "God" have to be a "human" with certain moral views? Why can't it just be nothingness? Some people (Buddhists) believe that non-human animals ARE in an afterlife. My point is that none of this is verifiable. The arguments one makes about God aren't verifiable; religion is not relevant in terms of deciding whether zoosexual sex should be legal; see this topic:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=1350.0

From that topic:

Quote
But it is inappropriate to delve into discussions of technical differences of religious ordinances, excessive scriptural interpretation (word nit-picking) [...] This forum is not the proper venue to proselytize. Also inappropriate to this forum are arguments about the existence of God, because they are fruitless, and because they have nothing to do with the FSP, since we will never take an official position on the matter.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 03:49:09 pm by JbbF »
Logged

Cp4056

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: Stop House Bill 1547
« Reply #53 on: January 01, 2017, 03:50:14 pm »

No need to delve, I serve the God of the Bible, you appear to serve your own desires. I do agree that arguing is fruitless. However while the FSP need not take an official position, I don't think having a civil discourse on differing opinions and points of view violates any regulations. After all- we are promoting freedom right? I tend to think those rules are to keep people from being overly obnoxious and verbally cantankerous. We haven't needed this kind of moderation. 
Logged

JbbF

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Stop House Bill 1547
« Reply #54 on: January 01, 2017, 03:56:35 pm »

No need to delve, I serve the God of the Bible, you appear to serve your own desires. I do agree that arguing is fruitless. However while the FSP need not take an official position, I don't think having a civil discourse on differing opinions and points of view violates any regulations. After all- we are promoting freedom right? I tend to think those rules are to keep people from being overly obnoxious and verbally cantankerous. We haven't needed this kind of moderation.

I agree, there's nothing wrong with civil discourse, and the quote I cited is something which I view as a guideline rather than a hard-rule. I was just worried that the discussion was starting to go on a religious tangent which could lead to arguing.

I don't do things only for my own desires, I just have moral values that differ from most. For example, I think that animals should not be killed (in slaughter for example), because I view that as immoral.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 03:59:49 pm by JbbF »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up