Conversations with Gambini about Goats, Sex, and his Momma

[Rose]

[MODERATOR NOTE: This thread was split from the Genetic Entropy (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3924-Genetic-Entropy) thread.]




Yes, you DID refuse to answer and you know it. I FULLY ADMIT that I was trying to get you to *ADMIT* that you do NOT believe the things I mentioned are morally wrong. Why? Because I KNOW there is no rational way for you to say they are morally wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY. That's the whole point. It is *OBVIOUS* to anyone with half a brain that you KNEW this and simply dodged the questions. And I didn't lie when I said your moral theory ALLOWS for circumstances under which child molestation is okay. You *FALSELY* (that is, you LIED) claimed I said that you *SAID* child molestation was okay under certain circumstances. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID DUDE!!! What I SAID was your MORAL THEORY *ALLOWS* for child molestation under certain circumstances. I was making an ARGUMENT. Do you see the difference? ...

BINI

Hello Bini

You are guilty as charged based on these three points:

1. To say that Richard's moral theory "Allows" for child molestation in certain circumstances, is the same as saying Richard thinks child molestation is okay in certain circumstances.

2. A child can never be a consenting adult, thus an adult could never say that a child consented to being molested under any circumstances.

3. Molestation by its very description is a crime and immoral, so it could never be allowed under any circumstances. A moral theory that allowed for child molestation under ANY circumstances would be immoral.


Kind regards,
Rose

[Rose]

Now I DID say that YOU (personally) didn't see anything morally wrong with a man who has a vasectomy having consenting sex with his mother. Why? Two reasons ...

1) You would not answer the question.

2) I ALREADY KNOW there is no way for you to argue it is morally wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY.


BINI

Hello Bini


Quite the contrary! We have both answered your question many times over.

Both Richard and I have stated that the type of relationship two consenting adults have is their own personal business ... it is neither our place nor yours to judge them. Whether or not Richard or I agree with, or like certain lifestyles, has nothing to do with the rights of consenting adults to have the type of relationships they desire.



Kind regards,
Rose

[Gambini]

Yet I persisted, and have tried to engage you on an intellectual level and you almost began to speak semi-rationally a couple weeks ago, but then dropped the conversation (apparently because I refuted your points)


There you go again. Assuming you've "won" an argument because I don't respond to every single comment directed at me. Get real, Richard. You do realize that some of us have lives, right? And you're not the only "atheist" I'm having discussions with online either. The world doesn't revolve around your website.



Since I have some time set aside right now, I will grant your request and reply to your last comment on that thread regarding *YOUR* moral theory. However, your assertion that before you answer the question I posed, we need to discuss HOW something becomes moral or immoral, is just plain bullshit. You don't just go up to someone and ask them what their moral theory is. In any normal discussion, you first ask someone IF they believe x is moral or immoral. After they ANSWER that question, THEN you ask them WHY they believe x is moral or immoral (and that's when they explain their moral theory). You are trying to DODGE the question I asked and skip to arguing your moral theory because you already know we'll never agree on what makes something objectively moral or immoral, which means you'll never end up even responding to the question. If I wanted to be an asshole, I could have just refused to even discuss your moral theory until you answered my question first. But I'll let that go and respond to your moral theory in the thread you put up.



BINI

[Gambini]

We have both answered your question many times over.

Both Richard and I have stated that the type of relationship two consenting adults have is their own personal business ... it is neither our place nor yours to judge them. Whether or not Richard or I agree with, or like certain lifestyles, has nothing to do with the rights of consenting adults to have the type of relationships they desire.


Thank you. Now anyone who accuses me of "lying" when I said Richard and Rose doesn't have any moral issue with an ADULT man having *CONSENTING* sex with his ADULT mother, is a LIAR ...


1) Rose just said she *ANSWERED* my question.

2) In response to my question, Rose FLAT OUT states that what consenting adults do in their own private lives is not our business.


Does this sound like the response of someone who objects morally to the question I raised??? I don't see how it could. Why not just give a plain yes or no? We already know we don't agree WHY something is moral or immoral. So why not just give a straightforward answer. For example, I, Gambini, believe it is morally wrong for a man to have sex with his mother (under ANY circumstance) BECAUSE it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy. Now we already know Rose DISAGREES with my moral theory just as I disagree with HER moral theory. But that still doesn't answer my question!!! ...


Rose, I answered my question with a plain yes (I DO believe it is wrong). Now why can't you do the same??? Yes or no, do you believe it is morally wrong for an ADULT man (with a vasectomy) to have *CONSENTING* sex with his ADULT mother??? If so, WHY???



BINI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank you. Now anyone who accuses me of "lying" when I said Richard and Rose doesn't have any moral issue with an ADULT man having *CONSENTING* sex with his ADULT mother, is a LIAR ...

You lied when you said that the moral theory Rose and I subscribe to allows for child molestation.

[Rose]

Thank you. Now anyone who accuses me of "lying" when I said Richard and Rose doesn't have any moral issue with an ADULT man having *CONSENTING* sex with his ADULT mother, is a LIAR ...


1) Rose just said she *ANSWERED* my question.

2) In response to my question, Rose FLAT OUT states that what consenting adults do in their own private lives is not our business.


Does this sound like the response of someone who objects morally to the question I raised??? I don't see how it could. Why not just give a plain yes or no? We already know we don't agree WHY something is moral or immoral. So why not just give a straightforward answer. For example, I, Gambini, believe it is morally wrong for a man to have sex with his mother (under ANY circumstance) BECAUSE it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy. Now we already know Rose DISAGREES with my moral theory just as I disagree with HER moral theory. But that still doesn't answer my question!!! ...


Rose, I answered my question with a plain yes (I DO believe it is wrong). Now why can't you do the same??? Yes or no, do you believe it is morally wrong for an ADULT man (with a vasectomy) to have *CONSENTING* sex with his ADULT mother??? If so, WHY???



BINI

Hello Bini

The answer to your question is: CONSENTING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ADULTS IS NOT A MORAL ISSUE!

[Gambini]

You lied when you said that the moral theory Rose and I subscribe to allows for child molestation.


THAT'S NOT A LIE DUDE!!! How can it be a "lie" when I was making an *ARGUMENT* that your moral theory ALLOWS for circumstances where molestation is not morally wrong? I STILL stand by that *ARGUMENT*. It's one thing for you to say my *ARGUMENT* is wrong, but you're saying I'm LYING!!! Since when is it acceptable to call someone a LIAR simply because they make an *ARGUMENT* you think is wrong??? ...


Here's my *ARGUMENT* as to why I believe your moral theory ALLOWS for molestation in certain circumstances ...


GIVEN YOUR MORAL THEORY, I don't see HOW you can rationally say it is morally wrong for someone to molest or fondle someone (even a child) who is induced into a coma for example OR why there should even be a law against it. IF NOBODY IS HARMED, then how do you make the case that it is wrong under your moral theory??? Furthermore, the molested subject would never even know he or she was molested or fondled. So how can it be wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY???



BINI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

GIVEN YOUR MORAL THEORY, I don't see HOW you can rationally say it is morally wrong for someone to molest or fondle someone (even a child) who is induced into a coma for example OR why there should even be a law against it. IF NOBODY IS HARMED, then how do you make the case that it is wrong under your moral theory??? Furthermore, the molested subject would never even know he or she was molested or fondled. So how can it be wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY???

If you really believe no one would be harmed, then why do you think it would be wrong?

[Gambini]

The answer to your question is: CONSENTING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ADULTS IS NOT A MORAL ISSUE!


Thank you. FOR THE RECORD, let it be known throughout the cosmos that according to the atheistic moral theory of Rose, there is nothing morally wrong with an ADULT man (with a vasectomy) having *CONSENTING* sex with his ADULT mother, auntie or grand mummy. Nor is there anything morally wrong (in her view) with an ADULT woman having *CONSENTING* sex with her own mother.


Thanks for clearing that up, Rose. I'm willing to drop this discussion right now (since this thread is really not the place for it).



BINI

[Gambini]

If you really believe no one would be harmed, then why do you think it would be wrong?


I already said why I, Gambini, believe ANY sexually immoral act is wrong (namely, it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy). That's my view. Now why is it wrong to you? I'm only making the *ARGUMENT* that I don't see how it can be deemed as wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY. Maybe you think I'm wrong. Fine. But don't call me a LIAR for making a freaking *ARGUMENT*.



BINI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

GIVEN YOUR MORAL THEORY, I don't see HOW you can rationally say it is morally wrong for someone to molest or fondle someone (even a child) who is induced into a coma for example OR why there should even be a law against it. IF NOBODY IS HARMED, then how do you make the case that it is wrong under your moral theory??? Furthermore, the molested subject would never even know he or she was molested or fondled. So how can it be wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY???


If you really believe no one would be harmed, then why do you think it would be wrong?

I already said why I, Gambini, believe ANY sexually immoral act is wrong (namely, it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy). That's my view. Now why is it wrong to you? I'm only making the *ARGUMENT* that I don't see how it can be deemed as wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY. Maybe you think I'm wrong. Fine. But don't call me a LIAR for making a freaking *ARGUMENT*.

Perfect. You asserted that "NOBODY IS HARMED" in an activity that you say "violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy."

Think about that. You say that nobody is harmed by violating God's law.

Perfect.

The utter incoherence of your moral theory has been exposed.

[Gambini]

Perfect. You asserted that "NOBODY IS HARMED" in an activity that you say "violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy."

Think about that. You say that nobody is harmed by violating God's law.

Perfect.

The utter incoherence of your moral theory has been exposed.


That is complete NONSENSE! I never said that in order for something to be wrong in my view, it has to produce physical harm. So you're attacking a strawman. In my view, the sexually immoral act *ITSELF* is wrong BECAUSE it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy.



BINI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That is complete NONSENSE! I never said that in order for something to be wrong in my view, it has to produce physical harm. So you're attacking a strawman. In my view, the sexually immoral act *ITSELF* is wrong BECAUSE it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy.



BINI
You never said you were talking only about physical harm.

You explicitly said "NOBODY IS HARMED" in an activity that you said violates God's law. It's obvious you do not think before you write.

I think you might be right when you say I am attacking a strawman - it appears you have nothing but straw in your head.

1229

[Rose]

GIVEN YOUR MORAL THEORY, I don't see HOW you can rationally say it is morally wrong for someone to molest or fondle someone (even a child) who is induced into a coma for example OR why there should even be a law against it. IF NOBODY IS HARMED, then how do you make the case that it is wrong under your moral theory??? Furthermore, the molested subject would never even know he or she was molested or fondled. So how can it be wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY???


BINI

Don't you understand the difference between a conscious, consenting adult, and a child or adult who cannot or does not give consent? Come on Bini, you can't be that dense!

CONSENTING ADULTS, we keep repeating this over and over again ... why is it so hard for you to understand this very simple concept?

A child or a person in a coma cannot give consent! This needs to be cleared up before we can go any futher.

[Gambini]

You never said you were talking only about physical harm.

You explicitly said "NOBODY IS HARMED" in an activity that you said violates God's law. It's obvious you do not think before you write.

I think you might be right when you say I am attacking a strawman - it appears you have nothing in your head but straw.


What other form of harm can there be other than PHYSICAL harm??? The person being molested in the example I gave is UNCONSCIOUS, remember??? Are you sure you're not the one with the straw in your head?


My moral theory does NOT entail the idea that something is morally wrong if and only if it causes harm between human beings. So your STRAWMAN is dismissed. For example, a couple can engage in fornication without anyone having an unwanted pregnancy or anyone catching a sexually transmitted disease. NONE of that is WHY fornication is wrong. It is wrong for the same reason that ALL sexual immorality is wrong (it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy). And notice how everytime the issue of morality comes up, you try and weasel out from answering the questions I raised. You've already demonstrated you're a LIAR by claiming my *ARGUMENT* = A "lie" so you can deflect from answering my questions and call me the liar. Further, you also LIED when you interpreted Craig's SILENCE as a "no" to your question (since you claimed it was a "lie""on my part to interpret your SILENCE to my question as a "no").


BINI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What other form of harm can there be other than PHYSICAL harm??? The person being molested in the example I gave is UNCONSCIOUS, remember??? Are you sure you're not the one with the straw in your head?

When the child wakes up, the molester could say "I creamed all over your little body" and do much psychological damage. Not to mention the damage the molester does to his own integrity, which is the foundation of morality in my theory.

It really blows my mind that you don't think molesting an unconscious child does any harm. Yowsers! :eek:

[Rose]

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=65675#post65675)
The answer to your question is: CONSENTING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ADULTS IS NOT A MORAL ISSUE!

Thank you. FOR THE RECORD, let it be known throughout the cosmos that according to the atheistic moral theory of Rose, there is nothing morally wrong with an ADULT man (with a vasectomy) having *CONSENTING* sex with his ADULT mother, auntie or grand mummy. Nor is there anything morally wrong (in her view) with an ADULT woman having *CONSENTING* sex with her own mother.


Thanks for clearing that up, Rose. I'm willing to drop this discussion right now (since this thread is really not the place for it).



BINI

Again, I repeat myself: CONSENTING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ADULTS IS NOT A MORAL ISSUE!

Quit putting words in my mouth and trying to make a moral issue out of something that has nothing to do with morality!!

I didn't say "There is nothing morally wrong", I said "It is not a moral issue" ... there is a difference, so please be more accurate.

[Gambini]

Don't you understand the difference between a conscious, consenting adult, and a child or adult who cannot or does not give consent? Come on Bini, you can't be that dense!

CONSENTING ADULTS, we keep repeating this over and over again ... why is it so hard for you to understand this very simple concept?

A child or a person in a coma cannot give consent! This needs to be cleared up before we can go any futher.


Are you saying if an infant cannot consent to something, that automatically makes it immoral??? Okay. So it's morally wrong to bath an infant or to feed an infant (since they can't CONSENT), right? An infant can't even consent to having its behind cleaned. In fact, an infant can't consent to ANYTHING because it hasn't developed verbal communication skills yet. So the mere fact that someone can't consent to something doesn't by itself make it immoral.



Sorry but I just don't see how UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY, the circumstances I raised can be deemed morally wrong ...

1) The infant is UNCONSCIOUS (hence, there are no emotional scars involved)

2) The infant would never know what the molester did.

3) An infant can't consent to ANYTHING (and yet nobody would say it's immoral to scrub a baby's ass when necessary).



BINI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Are you saying if an infant cannot consent to something, that automatically makes it immoral??? Okay. So it's morally wrong to bath an infant or to feed an infant (since they can't CONSENT), right? An infant can't even consent to having its behind cleaned. In fact, an infant can't consent to ANYTHING because it hasn't developed verbal communication skills yet. So the mere fact that someone can't consent to something doesn't by itself make it immoral.

Wow. Talk about a moronic strawman.



Sorry but I just don't see how UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY, the circumstances I raised can be deemed morally wrong ...

1) The infant is UNCONSCIOUS (hence, there are no emotional scares involved)

2) The infant would never know what the molester did.

3) An infant can't consent to ANYTHING (and yet nobody would say it's immoral to scrub a baby's ass when necessary).

And I remain stunned that you see no harm in molesting an unconscious child.

[Gambini]

When the child wakes up, the molester could say "I creamed all over your little body" and do much psychological damage. Not to mention the damage the molester does to his own integrity, which is the foundation of morality in my theory.

It really blows my mind that you don't think molesting an unconscious child does any harm. Yowsers! :eek:


TO THE CHILD, YOU IDIOT!!! If the child is in a COMA, then fondling a child does no physical OR emotional harm TO THE CHILD. Stop putting words in my mouth to make me sound like the QUACK when you and your wife are ON THE RECORD as saying there's nothing morally wrong with Joe getting a vasectomy and having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER :lol: (not to mention Linda or Valerie having consenting sex with THEIR OWN MOTHERS :lol:)!!!


And IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO HARM YOURSELF. For example, it's not illegal to smoke your brains out until you die of cancer. So saying it harms the molester doesn't work either. The fact of the matter is that the sexually immoral act *ITSELF* is morally wrong REGARDLESS of whether someone is harmed or not.



BINI

[L67]

Gambini,

Since you find incest immoral, then you should repulsed by the bible, right? The only way the population could have grown was through incest.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

TO THE CHILD, YOU IDIOT!!! If the child is in a COMA, then fondling a child does no physical OR emotional harm TO THE CHILD.

So you are saying so long as a molester hides sufficiently hides his abuse of children, so even the children never know, then there is "no harm" done to the child?

And you don't care if the molester harms his own self? That's not a moral issue to you?

Wow. Your religion has taught you some wonderful moral values.



Stop putting words in my mouth to make me sound like the QUACK when you and your wife are ON THE RECORD as saying there's nothing morally wrong with Joe getting a vasectomy and having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER :lol: (not to mention Linda or Valerie having consenting sex with THEIR OWN MOTHERS :lol:)!!!

Say what? You've been putting your words in my mouth from the beginning.

I am not "on record" as saying anything about mother/son incest. That's your wet dream. Pervert.

If you wanted to discuss my moral theory, you would be speaking of the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES that make something right or wrong. But you won't do that because you have no concept of morality other than "my imaginary demon-gawd tells me through my ego what is right and wrong."



And IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO HARM YOURSELF. For example, it's not illegal to smoke your brains out until you die of cancer. So saying it harms the molester doesn't work either. The fact of the matter is that the sexually immoral act *ITSELF* is morally wrong REGARDLESS of whether someone is harmed or not.

Morality is not defined by societal laws. Grow a brain already.

Harming your own integrity is immoral by definition because morality is integrity. That's why those words are synonyms. If you had integrity you would understand morality.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Gambini,

Since you find incest immoral, then you should repulsed by the bible, right? The only way the population could have grown was through incest.
Oh that's not a problem. Gambini will "special plead" his way right out of that blatant inconsistency.

[Rose]

TO THE CHILD, YOU IDIOT!!! If the child is in a COMA, then fondling a child does no physical OR emotional harm TO THE CHILD. Stop putting words in my mouth to make me sound like the QUACK when you and your wife are ON THE RECORD as saying there's nothing morally wrong with Joe getting a vasectomy and having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER :lol: (not to mention Linda or Valerie having consenting sex with THEIR OWN MOTHERS :lol:)!!!


BINI

You are a despicable liar Gambini, and the one who puts words in people mouths. You know that Richard and I have both said that relationships between consenting adults is not a moral issue, yet you continually say that we say "There is nothing morally wrong", when what we actually are doing is refusing to participate in your stupid scenario. When something is not a moral issue, it is neither morally wrong or morally right.

Grow a brain or shut up, you are making a complete ass of yourself.

[duxrow]

Right on, L67, it's true that in the period prior to the Law (even prior to the Deluge), the population could not have grown w/o incest. Cain must've married his sister, but where no law is.. Rom 4:15 "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression".
Seeing Genesis as a Pre-Law Period, and the "cleansing of the blood", Joel 3:21, gives sanction for the crime of Cain too, IMO.

[Gambini]

Gambini,

Since you find incest immoral, then you should be repulsed by the bible, right? The only way the population could have grown was through incest.


The answer to your question is found in GENETIC ENTROPY. The further we go back, the less mutation load the human family had built up in the genome. Once the genome mutated to a certain point, the risk of birth defects became greater and greater (thereby resulting in a divine decree against brother/sister marriages during the Mosaic period). Further, if God had created a multitude of couples (rather than beginning with a single couple), then there would be no one single human family. By starting with one couple, it makes us all one as a brotherhood of humanity and EMPHASIZES the brotherhood of humanity.


And notice I'm talking about adults having consenting sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS, which was NEVER sanctioned biblically and which is logically *ALLOWED* under ANY atheistic moral system (including yours). And now it's time to ask you a question in the spirit of universal brotherhood and discovery ...


Do you believe it is morally wrong to have powerful sex with a DEAD goat??? If not, WHY???



BINI

[Gambini]

You are a despicable liar Gambini, and the one who puts words in people's mouths. You know that Richard and I have both said that relationships between consenting adults is not a moral issue, yet you continually say that we say "There is nothing morally wrong", when what we actually are doing is refusing to participate in your stupid scenario. When something is not a moral issue, it is neither morally wrong or morally right.


So you're saying it's AMORAL??? Fine. So what I said IS PERFECTLY ACCURATE ...


According to the atheistic moral system of Rose, there is nothing morally wrong with Gregory getting a vasectomy and having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER because according to her, it's AMORAL (hence, it CAN'T be immoral). Further, there is nothing morally wrong with Becky or Barbara having consenting sex with THEIR OWN MOTHERS because according to Rose, it's AMORAL (hence, it CAN'T be immoral).



BINI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Look at the title of this thread and there's your answer. The further we go back, the less mutation load the human family had built up in the genome. Once the genome mutated to a certain point, the risk of birth defects became greater and greater (thereby resulting in a divine decree against brother/sister marriages during the Mosaic period). Further, if God had created a multitude of couples (rather than beginning with a single couple), then there would be no one single human family. By starting with one couple, it makes us all one as a brotherhood of humanity and EMPHASIZES the brotherhood of humanity.

Ha! I knew it. SPECIAL PLEADING!

I was going to predict this specific excuse he made but decided to give him enough rope to hang himself.

According to Gambini, morality is based on God's unchanging nature. Except when the situations change. Then the very same act that once was moral is now such a HORROR of IMMORALITY that he constantly repeats it in all caps.

This is what he must do to rationalize the incoherent babble he thinks is the "Holy Word" of his EGO-GAWD (which is nothing but his own ego, magnified and projected). He is now promoting SITUATIONAL ETHICS, which change over time. He has no MORAL PRINCIPLES to guide his reasoning. By his explanation, the only reason incest is currently "immoral" is because it could cause birth defects. So now he can ask himself his favorite question: If a man had a vasectomy and his sister had her tubes tied, would it be immoral for them to have sex? If so, why? They wouldn't have any children, so his explanation fails.

Gambini's answer shows that he has no concept of what makes something moral or immoral.

Gambini cannot answer why there is anything actually immoral about incest. His only answer is "cuz my gawd changed his mind. It used to be moral, but then he said it was immoral because cuz it caused HARM" which just happens to be central to my moral theory. Ha. What a freaking brain dead loon.

And of course his answer assumes that the genome was sufficiently "perfect" to allow incest until the time of Moses! That's nuts. That's no time at all on the evolutionary scale. Old strawbrain doesn't have half a clue what he's babbling about.



And notice I'm talking about adults having consenting sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS, which was NEVER sanctioned biblically and which is logically *ALLOWED* under ANY atheistic moral system (including yours). And now it's time to ask you a question in the spirit of universal brotherhood and discovery ...

It's not "allowed" if it would cause harm.

This exposes the incoherence of your morality. You assert that HARMLESS things are immoral! Wow.



Do you believe it is morally wrong to have powerful sex with a DEAD goat??? If not, WHY???

HA! You always reveal your hand. All your ravings are driven by mindless irrational emotion. You always throw in words like "powerful sex with a DEAD goat", "passionate sex with your mother", "sex with a FILTHY dog." If anyone were to take your questions seriously, as if you were a real thinker, they would have to ask what you are trying to imply by the adjectives. Are saying that WEAK sex with a LIVE goat would be ok, or DISPASSIONATE sex with your mother, or sex with a CLEAN dog? If that's not what you meant, then it is obvious you threw in those emotionally laden terms to evoke mindless emotions and in a vain attempt to disable the minds of readers you hope to deceive. In other words, you write like a typical Christian fundamentalist whose heart and mind has been utterly corrupted by his FILTHY religion.

[Rose]

So you're saying it's AMORAL??? Fine. So what I said IS PERFECTLY ACCURATE ...


According to the atheistic moral system of Rose, there is nothing morally wrong with Gregory getting a vasectomy and having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER because according to her, it's AMORAL (hence, it CAN'T be immoral). Further, there is nothing morally wrong with Becky or Barbara having consenting sex with THEIR OWN MOTHERS because according to Rose, it's AMORAL (hence, it CAN'T be immoral).



BINI

No, it is not perfectly accurate! Everything you say has a twisted and perverted spin to it, specifically for the sake of shock value. How pathetic and unchristian is that?

You seem to be quite obsessed with people having sex with their mothers! What's up with that anyway?? Kinda weird don't you think?? :lol:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

According to the atheistic moral system of Rose, there is nothing morally wrong with Gregory getting a vasectomy and having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER because according to her, it's AMORAL (hence, it CAN'T be immoral). Further, there is nothing morally wrong with Becky or Barbara having consenting sex with THEIR OWN MOTHERS because according to Rose, it's AMORAL (hence, it CAN'T be immoral).

And according to your morals there is nothing intrinsically immoral about incest between brothers and sisters. You are a freaking joke Gamboner.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No, it is not perfectly accurate! Everything you say has a twisted and perverted spin to it, specifically for the sake of shock value. How pathetic and unchristian is that?

You seem to be quite obsessed with people having sex with their mothers! What's up with that anyway?? Kinda weird don't you think?? :lol:
Damn straight!

[L67]

Look at the title of this thread and there's your answer. The further we go back, the less mutation load the human family had built up in the genome. Once the genome mutated to a certain point, the risk of birth defects became greater and greater (thereby resulting in a divine decree against brother/sister marriages during the Mosaic period). Further, if God had created a multitude of couples (rather than beginning with a single couple), then there would be no one single human family. By starting with one couple, it makes us all one as a brotherhood of humanity and EMPHASIZES the brotherhood of humanity.


And notice I'm talking about adults having consenting sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS, which was NEVER sanctioned biblically and which is logically *ALLOWED* under ANY atheistic moral system (including yours). And now it's time to ask you a question in the spirit of universal brotherhood and discovery ...


Do you believe it is morally wrong to have powerful sex with a DEAD goat??? If not, WHY???



BINI




What a steaming pile of bullshit. Incest is still incest no matter who it's with. Thanks for showing your gross double standard. You don't. Hold the bible to the same standard.

Every scenario involves sex. You sound like the most sexually depraved lunatic I have ever seen. Piss on you and your goat sex. I'm not even discussing such trash with you.

Plain and simple. You're a sick bastard.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What a steaming pile of bullshit. Incest is still incest no matter who it's with. Thanks for showing your gross double standard. You don't. Hold the bible to the same standard.

Every scenario involves sex. You sound like the most sexually depraved lunatic I have ever seen. Piss on you and your goat sex. I'm not even discussing such trash with you.

Plain and simple. You're a sick bastard.
Double Damn Straight!

[Gambini]

So now he can ask himself his favorite question: If a man had a vasectomy and his sister had her tubes tied, would it be immoral for them to have sex? If so, why? They wouldn't have any children, so his explanation fails.


That's easy ... First of all, I never said circumstances do not play a role when it comes to determining what is moral and what is immoral. The exact opposite is true. Circumstances ALWAYS have to be taken into account. However, there are NO CIRCUMSTANCES whatsoever that would make a father/mother or daughter/mother relationship allowable (unless you're an atheist of course) ...


There are two reasons why brother/sister marriages are wrong *NOW* ...

1) The risk of genetic defects.

2) The fact that it was INTENDED for a finite period that would cease once the human population had grown such that it was not needed. So just as animal sacrifice is done away with and it would be biblically immoral to reinstitute it, so brother/sister marriages are done away with and it would be biblically immoral to reinstitute it. The purpose of animal sacrifice was to point to THE sacrifice of the Christ and the purpose of originally creating a single couple (rather than a multitude of couples) was to eventually produce a single brotherhood of mankind in a very real sense.


So to answer your question ...


Yes, it WOULD be immoral to marry your immediate brother/sister even if they were unable to produce offspring BECAUSE the very purpose for which it was allowed has been achieved (a single brotherhood of mankind AND a large enough population such that it's not needed to multiply the human family).



On the other hand, YOUR moral theory ALLOWS for Victor to get a vasectomy and have consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER. Further, YOUR moral theory ALLOWS for Irene and Isabella to have consenting sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS.



BINI

[Gambini]

Every scenario involves sex. You sound like the most sexually depraved lunatic I have ever seen. Piss on you and your goat sex. I'm not even discussing such trash with you.

Plain and simple. You're a sick bastard.


Hey IDIOT, why is incest wrong under YOUR MORAL THEORY (including cases where offspring are not a possibility)??? I already explained why it's wrong under my moral theory in response to Richard's question. Anybody who does not believe that circumstances play a role when it comes to moral questions is a NUTTER ...


It's not my fault that YOUR MORAL THEORY allows for all kinds of weird and wacky shit. And you KNOW this, which is why you can't even give a reason for why it is morally wrong to have ruthless sex with a DEAD goat :lol:



BINI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So now he can ask himself his favorite question: If a man had a vasectomy and his sister had her tubes tied, would it be immoral for them to have sex? If so, why? They wouldn't have any children, so his explanation fails.


There are two reasons why brother/sister marriages are wrong *NOW* ...

1) The risk of genetic defects.


Can't you read? I explained why that explanation fails and you did not respond to, let alone refute, what I wrote. You merely repeated your failed explanation.

And besides, that, your explanation is not a MORAL explanation at all. Skydiving is risky. People die doing it. That doesn't make it immoral. With every post you prove the same points over and over again: You don't understand what you read. You don't know how to form a logical argument, and you don't have a clue what actually makes something moral or immoral.



2) The fact that it was INTENDED for a finite period that would cease once the human population had grown such that it was not needed. So just as animal sacrifice is done away with and it would be biblically immoral to reinstitute it, so brother/sister marriages are done away with and it would be biblically immoral to reinstitute it. The purpose of animal sacrifice was to point to THE sacrifice of the Christ and the purpose of originally creating a single couple (rather than a multitude of couples) was to eventually produce a single brotherhood of mankind in a very real sense.

There is no evidence that it was intended for a finite time. You just made that up out of your own imagination to defend your ludicrous dogmas about your ludicrous gawd.

Your morality is not based on any UNIVERSAL OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLES. It is mindless religious dogmatism no different that what the terrorists used to justify bringing down the Twin Towers.



So to answer your question ...

Yes, it WOULD be immoral to marry your immediate brother/sister even if they were unable to produce offspring BECAUSE the very purpose for which it was allowed has been achieved (a single brotherhood of mankind AND a large enough population such that it's not needed to multiply the human family).

Even if your excuse were true, that wouldn't make it immoral. The fact that there is supposedly no longer a "need" for incest does not imply that incest is now immoral. How freaking lame is your brain?!?

You've got nothing to offer but ludicrous fallacies of special pleading and similar bullshit. You just make up excuses out of your lame little brain and declare that they are God's Own Truth. What a load of pathetic bullshit.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey ... It's not my fault that YOUR MORAL THEORY allows for all kinds of weird and wacky shit. And you KNOW this, which is why you can't even give a reason for why it is morally wrong to have ruthless sex with a DEAD goat :lol:

Apparently Gamboner has a boner for dead goats and his own momma.

[L67]

Hey IDIOT, why is incest wrong under YOUR MORAL THEORY (including cases where offspring are not a possibility)??? I already explained why it's wrong under my moral theory in response to Richard's question. Anybody who does not believe that circumstances play a role when it comes to moral questions is a NUTTER ...


Hey ... It's not my fault that YOUR MORAL THEORY allows for all kinds of weird and wacky shit. And you KNOW this, which is why you can't even give a reason for why it is morally wrong to have ruthless sex with a DEAD goat :lol:



BINI

Hey Bini wienie,

Are you posting from the farm again? That would explain your obsession with goats. Thank you for proving you really are a sick freak.


Also, you don't have a moral theory. You just assert your morality comes from god, until the Bible condones the very thing you are arguing against. Then you make up bullshit excuses about why incest was kosher in the Bible.

My moral theory? I have never even discussed any kind of a moral theory you lying sack of shit. I haven't discussed it with you because you have proven yourself to be a psychopath void of any decency.

And who but a goat lover himself could come up with powerful ruthless sex with dead goats as a topic of morality?

[L67]

Apparently Gamboner has a boner for dead goats and his own momma.

Quoted for truth.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Bini wienie,

Are you posting from the farm again? That would explain your obsession with goats. Thank you for proving you really are a sick freak.

He's been obsessing about sex with "stinking dogs" and "dead goats" for many months on this forum. Quite the freak. And to think he thinks he's a Christian? Wow. The religious delusions run deep in his sect.



Also, you don't have a moral theory. You just assert your morality comes from god, until the Bible condones the very thing you are arguing against. Then you make up bullshit excuses about why incest was kosher in the Bible.

That is typical of the religiously deluded. They have no sense of morality whatsoever. Case in point: Watch the video in the thread Hector Avalos debates Keith Darrel: Is the Bible a Moral Code for Today? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today) where only the atheist can say that genocide is objectively immoral, because the Christian knows that his gawd commanded it many times. And that's not an isolated case of the stupider-than-average fundamentalist. The "greatest living Christian apologist" - William Lame Craig - has attempted to defend God's genocidal madness by saying that he did no wrong to the children because "they all went to heaven." Somehow the great Christian philopholer failed to notice that the same logic justifies abortion.

And if you want to see "moral character" approved by hoards of fundamentalist Christians, you can watch former pastor (now convicted pedophile) Jack Schaap "polish his shaft" in mock masturbation, complete with groans and grunts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr0UpQXYkGs

Hoards of mindless Christians Zombies follow these ludicrous charlatans. I'm sure Gambini would feel right at home amongst them.


My moral theory? I have never even discussed any kind of a moral theory you lying sack of shit. I haven't discussed it with you because you have proven yourself to be a psychopath void of any decency.

Gambini simply ASSUMES he knows your moral theory, and then makes wild and unsupported assertions about how you would approve of whatever perversion he made up in his sick and twisted mind. He's been do that to me for months.



And who but a goat lover himself could come up with powerful ruthless sex with dead goats as a topic of morality?
Indeed.

[Gambini]

Skydiving is risky. People die doing it. That doesn't make it immoral.


WHAT??? So now you're actually telling me you do NOT believe it is immoral for brothers/sisters to have sex even if there is a risk of them producing children with defects??? WOW ... YOU ARE AN EVEN BIGGER *QUACK* THAN I THOUGHT, RICHARD. In that case, it logically follows that UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY, there is nothing morally wrong with Joe Blow having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (with no need of any vasectomies or tubes tied)!!! This is according to YOUR own moral theory. You KNOW your moral theory ALLOWS for all sorts of bizarre sexual filth, which is why you're trying to accuse me of being the freakazoid when I'm simply stating *FACTS* regarding what your moral theory logically ALLOWS. And your skydiving analogy is garbage ...

A skydiver places a risk of harm ON HIMSELF (or herself). Everyone has the right to place themselves under whatever risk they want. A brother/sister having sex risks putting harm ON ANOTHER PERSON.




There is no evidence that it was intended for a finite time. You just made that up out of your own imagination to defend your ludicrous dogmas about your ludicrous gawd.


Wow ... You lied AGAIN. What a surprise. The Mosaic law put a ban on brother/sister marriages. So OBVIOUSLY it was INTENDED for a finite time.




Even if your excuse were true, that wouldn't make it immoral. The fact that there is supposedly no longer a "need" for incest does not imply that incest is now immoral. How freaking lame is your brain?!?


Hey IDIOT ... Is it morally wrong for a mother to breastfeed her baby??? NO, YOU LOON!!! Is it morally wrong for a grown man to suck on his mother's nipples??? YES, YOU LOON!!! Why? Because THE PURPOSE THAT IS SERVED IN BREASTFEEDING THE BABY HAS ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED (nourishment of the infant with breast milk)!!! *LIKEWISE*, the purpose that was served in allowing for brother/sister marriages has been fulfilled (namely, the purpose of producing a single universal brotherhood of mankind in a very real way AND the purpose of multiplying the human family until brother/sister marriages were not needed).



Let it be known throughout the holy cosmos (now and forevermore) that under the moral theory of these APEtheists/QUACKnostics, it LOGICALLY follows that there is nothing morally wrong with Carlos having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER. Further, under their moral theory, it LOGICALLY follows that there is nothing morally wrong with Susan or Sandy having consenting sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS. They *KNOW* this, which is why they are trying to take the attention away from those *FACTS* and resort to attacking me.



I am Gambini and I assure you that I am NOT a "piece" of shit (in fact, I am the WHOLE shit and nothing BUT the shit).

[Rose]

Hey IDIOT ... Is it morally wrong for a mother to breastfeed her baby??? NO, YOU LOON!!! Is it morally wrong for a grown man to suck on his mother's nipples??? YES, YOU LOON!!! Why? Because THE PURPOSE THAT IS SERVED IN BREASTFEEDING THE BABY HAS ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED (nourishment of the infant with breast milk)!!! *LIKEWISE*, the purpose that was served in allowing for brother/sister marriages has been fulfilled (namely, the purpose of producing a single universal brotherhood of mankind in a very real way AND the purpose of multiplying the human family until brother/sister marriages were not needed).

I am Gambini and I assure you that I am NOT a "piece" of shit (in fact, I am the WHOLE shit and nothing BUT the shit).

It seems like what you are saying is sex is for one purpose only and that is to produce offspring, so if a husband has a vasectomy or a wife has her tubes tied, they are committing an immoral act every time they have sex. :lol:

[Gambini]

It seems like what you are saying is sex is for one purpose only and that is to produce offspring, so if a husband has a vasectomy or a wife has her tubes tied, they are committing an immoral act every time they have sex. :lol:


I have no idea how you got that from anything I've said. I never said the ONLY purpose for sex was to produce children. That would be like saying the ONLY reason to eat is to sustain our lives. Just like we can enjoy our food, we can enjoy sex with our marital partners.



BINI

[Rose]

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Gambini http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=65733#post65733)

Is it morally wrong for a grown man to suck on his mother's nipples??? YES, YOU LOON!!! Why? Because THE PURPOSE THAT IS SERVED IN BREASTFEEDING THE BABY HAS ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED (nourishment of the infant with breast milk)!!! *LIKEWISE*, the purpose that was served in allowing for brother/sister marriages has been fulfilled (namely, the purpose of producing a single universal brotherhood of mankind in a very real way AND the purpose of multiplying the human family until brother/sister marriages were not needed).


I have no idea how you got that from anything I've said. I never said the ONLY purpose for sex was to produce children. That would be like saying the ONLY reason to eat is to sustain our lives. Just like we can enjoy our food, we can enjoy sex with our marital partners.



BINI

Well, I got the idea from you when you said that it was morally wrong for a man to suck on breasts, because the purpose of breasts was for producing milk for babies, and you also said that its morally wrong for brothers and sisters to have sex, except when god allowed it for reproductive purposes.

You know we do have to eat to sustain our lives, but we don't have to have sex :lol: