Huckabee running on the Insane Ticket

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - I don't think I can quite agree with him that gay marriage
is like incest.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0413/huckabee-compares-gay-marriage-incest-polygamy-drug/

[Orson Zedd]

Frankly, his religion's a lot of bullshit, but if he is right, I'll be
glad I'm not going to the same afterlife as him.

OZ

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en.
>
>

[Nathan]

So long as it's incest or polygamy between consenting adults, I don't
see why it would morally be any different than homosexuality.

Nathan

On Apr 14, 8:50 am, Clogtowner <clogtow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi y'all - I don't think I can quite agree with him that gay marriage

> is like incest.http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0413/huckabee-compares-gay-marriage-inces...

[Jason]

Nathan,

It goes back to your basis for morality. All religions are not as
opposed to homosexuality as St. Paul and much of Christianity/Judaism/
Islam. However, most governments have laws against incest for public
health reasons. Laws against polygamy probably have more to do with
economics with a taint of religion. Your moral authority as the
Christian God is not accepted by members of other faiths or people of
no faith. However, you have a right to your opinion and to value your
specific god concept.

Jason

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - incest can produce weird babies. Homosexuality produces no
babies. I didn't think I'd need to point that out to you. Perhaps it
has been overlooked in the Alabama educational system.

On Apr 16, 5:26 pm, Nathan <njohnso...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Human...@aol.com]

 

 

Ma mutah was ma sista an ma daddy was ma brotha.

 

J.

[Orson Zedd]

So long as it's incest or polygamy between consenting adults, I don't see why it would morally be any different than heterosexuality.

OZ

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - I don't think we are just addressing morality. There is a
perfectly good medical reason for avoiding incest. I see no medical
reason for avoiding homosexuality.

On Apr 17, 10:59 am, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So long as it's incest or polygamy between consenting adults, I don't see
> why it would morally be any different than heterosexuality.
>
> OZ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Nathan <njohnso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So long as it's incest or polygamy between consenting adults, I don't
> > see why it would morally be any different than homosexuality.
>
> > Nathan
>
> > On Apr 14, 8:50 am, Clogtowner <clogtow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi y'all - I don't think I can quite agree with him that gay marriage
> > > is like incest.
> >http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0413/huckabee-compares-gay-marriage-inces...
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoughta lliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en.

[Nathan]

I'm not arguing against homosexuality here; I'm defending polygamy and
incest. I'm saying that the only ground on which to forbid
homosexuality, polygamy, and incest would be a religious morality.
From a secular perspective, what reason is there to forbid any sort of
sexual activity between consenting adults?

And incest is more likely to produce birth defects, but it's not a
given. And birth defects can affect any baby. Besides, aren't most of
you pro-choice? Couldn't the incestuous couple just abort their baby?

Nathan

[Orson Zedd]

I think the whole morality thing is the problem, when you get right down to it.  What makes something moral and something else not?  I mean, morality exists, you know.  But it's not some standard beyond questioning.

And that's the thing you're getting at, Nathan, and you're right.  There isn't any secular reason to forbid any action, not strictly secular at least.  There are, however, as has been pointed out, biological imperatives and lazy tax codes.

OZ

[MemphisBill]

What's a lazy tax code?

> > memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en.
>

> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en.
>

> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - morally there is no reason to forbid sex between consenting
adults - agreed.
There is good reason to avoid incest. Although, pro choice, I don't
advocate abortion as a form of birth control - it should be a last
resort. Incest reduces the gene pool which is unhealthy.

[Orson Zedd]

Tax codes are not apt to provide the filing of taxes for more than two married couples.  There are, however, some households of 4 intermarried individuals of varying genders.

OZ

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - swingers?

> > <memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoug htalliance%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>

>
> > > > .
> > > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > > > groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> > > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoughta lliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > <memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoug htalliance%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>

>
> > > > .
> > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > > > groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en.
>
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoughta lliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > <memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoug htalliance%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>

>
> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en.
>
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoughta lliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > .
> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com<memphisfreethoughta lliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[MemphisBill]

Has Huckabee mentioned them?

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - no I was trying to figure out what Oz meant.

[Orson Zedd]

Not precisely.  These are a group of four people who live together and have sex with each other and love each other and raise everyone's kids equally.  Swingers have wild sex with other people's partners.  It's monogamous polygamy.

OZ

[Preston Rogers]

    Back to what Nathan wrote a few posts ago, I agree that atheists/secularists do not believe in an absolute moral standard. That does not mean that they have no morals or moral standards. Nathan wrote:

 

           From a secular perspective, what reason is there to forbid any sort of
> > > > sexual activity between consenting adults?

 

    The reason is because some consenting sexual adult behavior is morally wrong and repugnant in our culture at this time.  This standard(s) is determined by our law which is a reflection of our cumulative history and culture.  Some of that morality goes back to the dawn of man and early tribal groups. 

 

    Morality is rarely the clean cut absolute espoused in the Bible, dictated by God.  Take clittoral mutilation as an accepted practice in some cultures or stoning a transgressing relative or "honor" killings of sisters by brothers over fornication or less- I think we all are repulsed by these acts and agree that they are morally wrong, but are we imposing our worldview onto another culture?  Those societies either have the right to determine the fate of their eventual victims or the world community, now quite global, has enough consensus to end it.  

 

    What about circumcision then?  It falls under genital mutilation as well, but not nearly as painful (well... maybe) or ruinous.  Lethal injection, capital punishment, is accepted in some parts of the U.S. and is not much different from stoning.  Less painful, same result.  Morality gets muddled easily. 

 

    Take the "noble savage".  Even Paul admits if a man has not received the law, he can still be judged by his conscience and matching works and be saved (Romans 2:12-16, 5:13).  God is revealed in nature around him therefore he is accountable (Rom. 1:20, 21).  Paul also says that no man can escape death, Adam's curse, etc. so no man judged by his conscience will ever live up to the standard needed for salvation (Rom. 3:10-20, 5:14).  Paul is either contradicting himself or admitting the Catch-22. 

 

    I think many fundamentalists want to believe that the non-religious are without morals and have carte blanc with sin.  It is so much easier to see life as all-or-none or as black-and-white, but that is not so with many atheists.  I think they have a realistic, if more sombre, view of morality. 

 

   And incest is more likely to produce birth defects, but it's not a
> > > > given. And birth defects can affect any baby. Besides, aren't most of
> > > > you pro-choice? Couldn't the incestuous couple just abort their baby?
 

    Are we being facetious here?  Yes, incest is bad and immoral (to me at least), but it is not the birth defects that make it immoral, it's the act of mating with your sister, brother, etc.  Incest is not immoral because God says so, rather because it is viscerally wrong.  The birth defects are a physical hint that inbreeding leads to the weakening of genetic pools, but doesn't speak to the emotional perversion of such acts.

 

    My sister and I are both adopted from different families from across Tennessee.  If we engaged in incest, any offspring would not probably have birth defects.  You are suggesting that atheists would think this incestous relation moral because there is no increased chance of having a defective child, right?  And pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.  No one is pro-abortion and to imply otherwise is once again over-simplifying a difficult moral issue. 

 

    With my birth mother being 17 at delivery, there may have been a distinct possibility that I could've been aborted.  If I ever meet her, I will thank her for her decision to put me up for adoption.  But, if I had been aborted, "I" would have never existed. 

 

    A bag of cells is not a human being any more than a fetus is a teenager.  Potential for life exists everywhere and we don't protect it.  A woman's menses may contain fertilized eggs so why in the hell aren't all the Tiller Killers collecting female menstrual blood and culturing what eggs develop or at least freeze them for later?  This would be so easy to do once proper products were developed and think of all the saved little babies!

 

    No, "pro-lifers" really don't give a shit about the child.  It's all about the sexual morality and women's reproductive rights.  Case in point, notice how the above quoted emails conveniently segue from sexual, moral issues like incest and polygamy right into abortion rights.

 

Preston 

[ornamentalmind]

“…I agree that atheists/secularists do not believe in an absolute
moral standard….” = P

So, no belief. Is there a rejection thereof also?


On Apr 20, 12:04 am, "Preston Rogers" <rprestonrog...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>     Back to what Nathan wrote a few posts ago, I agree that atheists/secularists do not believe in an absolute moral standard. That does not mean that they have no morals or moral standards. Nathan wrote:...
>
> read more »

>
>            From a secular perspective, what reason is there to forbid any sort of
>
> > > > > sexual activity between consenting adults?
>
>     The reason is because some consenting sexual adult behavior is morally wrong and repugnant in our culture at this time.  This standard(s) is determined by our law which is a reflection of our cumulative history and culture.  Some of that morality goes back to the dawn of man and early tribal groups.
>
>     Morality is rarely the clean cut absolute espoused in the Bible, dictated by God.  Take clittoral mutilation as an accepted practice in some cultures or stoning a transgressing relative or "honor" killings of sisters by brothers over fornication or less- I think we all are repulsed by these acts and agree that they are morally wrong, but are we imposing our worldview onto another culture?  Those societies either have the right to determine the fate of their eventual victims or the world community, now quite global, has enough consensus to end it.  
>
>     What about circumcision then?  It falls under genital mutilation as well, but not nearly as painful (well... maybe) or ruinous.  Lethal injection, capital punishment, is accepted in some parts of the U.S. and is not much different from stoning.  Less painful, same result.  Morality gets muddled easily.  
>
>     Take the "noble savage".  Even Paul admits if a man has not received the law, he can still be judged by his conscience and matching works and be saved (Romans 2:12-16, 5:13).  God is revealed in nature around him therefore he is accountable (Rom. 1:20, 21).  Paul also says that no man can escape death, Adam's curse, etc. so no man judged by his conscience will ever live up to the standard needed for salvation (Rom. 3:10-20, 5:14).  Paul is either contradicting himself or admitting the Catch-22.
>
>     I think many fundamentalists want to believe that the non-religious are without morals and have carte blanc with sin.  It is so much easier to see life as all-or-none or as black-and-white, but that is not so with many atheists.  I think they have a realistic, if more sombre, view of morality.  
>
>    And incest is more likely to produce birth defects, but it's not a
>
> > > > > given. And birth defects can affect any baby. Besides, aren't most of
> > > > > you pro-choice? Couldn't the incestuous couple just abort their baby?
>
>     Are we being facetious here?  Yes, incest is bad and immoral (to me at least), but it is not the birth defects that make it immoral, it's the act of mating with your sister, brother, etc.  Incest is not immoral because God says so, rather because it is viscerally wrong.  The birth defects are a physical hint that inbreeding leads to the weakening of genetic pools, but doesn't speak to the emotional perversion of such acts.
>
>     My sister and I are both adopted from different families from across Tennessee.  If we engaged in incest, any offspring would not probably have birth defects.  You are suggesting that atheists would think this incestous relation moral because there is no increased chance of having a defective child, right?  And pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.  No one is pro-abortion and to imply otherwise is once again over-simplifying a difficult moral issue.  
>
>     With my birth mother being 17 at delivery, there may have been a distinct possibility that I could've been aborted.  If I ever meet her, I will thank her for her decision to put me up for adoption.  But, if I had been aborted, "I" would have never existed.  
>
>     A bag of cells is not a human being any more than a fetus is a teenager.  Potential for life exists everywhere and we don't protect it.  A woman's menses may contain fertilized eggs so why in the hell aren't all the Tiller Killers collecting female menstrual blood and culturing what eggs develop or at least freeze them for later?  This would be so easy to do once proper products were developed and think of all the saved little babies!
>
>     No, "pro-lifers" really don't give a shit about the child.  It's all about the sexual morality and women's reproductive rights.  Case in point, notice how the above quoted emails conveniently segue from sexual, moral issues like incest and polygamy right into abortion rights.
>
> Preston  
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Orson Zedd
>   To: memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
>   Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 12:26 PM
>   Subject: Re: Huckabee running on the Insane Ticket
>
>   Not precisely.  These are a group of four people who live together and have sex with each other and love each other and raise everyone's kids equally.  Swingers have wild sex with other people's partners.  It's monogamous polygamy.
>
>   OZ
>

>     > > > > "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Preston Rogers]

Perhaps "believe" is not the best choice of words. I reject the idea that
there is some intrinsic, universal moral absolute, as usually seen with
belief in god(s), that all people must conform to. I do not reject most of
the moral standards that are universal within our culture.

[ornamentalmind]

“Perhaps "believe" is not the best choice of words. I reject the idea

that
there is some intrinsic, universal moral absolute, as usually seen
with
belief in god(s), that all people must conform to. I do not reject
most of

the moral standards that are universal within our culture.” - P

Belief/non-belief…now you appear to do surgery upon thinking!!! (“I
reject the idea that…”) Such ideas about a “universal moral
absolute” [something quite different from your original “absolute
moral standard”], exist nonetheless. And, red herrings, enforced
conformity and theological stereotypes aside, what evidence do you
have that what you call “moral standards that are universal within our
culture” are any more acceptable, real, better than or even
*different* from an “absolute moral standard”???


On Apr 21, 7:37 am, "Preston Rogers" <rprestonrog...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> > > > > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp://- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »