Another thing to mention is that those billboards are twisting and ignoring text to make homosexuality look morally acceptable which is something that didn't happen in slavery and interracial marriage debates. The best argument for homosexuality is arguing the possibility that there is nothing against it, not this crap.
Also, the way that guy spoke in the video was overly dramatic and he was trying to hard to get sympathy and trying to appeal to too many people.
Slavery was somethine accepted, that was trying to be made unacceptable.
Homosexuality is more similar to interracial marriage as in people tried to stop it from happening.
And no, there weren't moral billbords in the 1830s or in the 1910s...
Originally posted by Nellinator
As right as you are, you will get bashed for this.Second, I have yet to see what they used to justify being against interracial marriage and I haven't seen anything that can be pulled out of context to support it either...
Slavery IS intrinsically wrong, even if benevolent.
And sorry, I'm not an expert on early 1900s fundamentalism...maybe our friend William Jennings Bryan has something to say on the matter.
It depends on the reason for enslavement. POWs were frequently used and I think it was a great idea, much better most other feasible options. Besides that, Jewish law states that mistreated slaves are freed from their debt and my leave a free person. They did not need anyone's approval but their own.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😱 You don't believe that slavery is wrong? To take away a person's right to freedom, even if they are treated good, is wrong.
EDIT:
Really, the question at this point isn't "Would Jesus discriminate?"
It's "Would Jesus pwn Jews?"
(Yes. And then he'd take down Urizen just because.)
Originally posted by AllianceNot dependant true, well it actually is arguable how successful they would have been without, but that is beside the point, really slavery in those times didn't need to be morally justified as they were simply POWs in the Jews case. Besides that they were supposed to be treated well and they weren't really slaves considering the rights they had under Judaic law. On top of that, I've haven't any evidence that the Jews had slaves since the 6th century BC. Albeit I haven't looked very hard...
Nah, this is not 200 BCE. Even the Roman Empire was NOT dependant on slavery.Slavery was NEVER essential or morally justified, even in history.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
To own another person is immoral. To force another person to do your labor and not pay them is even more immoral.I am surprised at you Feceman, I assumed you far more logical than that.
Originally posted by FeceMan
The person has the freedom to choose death over slavery. I defend slavery because I belive that slavery is not morally wrong in and of itself. I believe that the treatment of slaves and method of procuring them can be wrong, however.
It is wrong to make someone do your labor without pay. Do your own damn labor...
It is wrong to own another person as property.
How do you not see that ?
Under Jewish law and tradition slaves had rights and could make money. They were allowed many freedoms. Also, they did not do the work of their master, they worked with their master who owned rights to their labour not their person. Slaves were free people allowed only to work for their "owner" as a result of whatever reason they were acquired for.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Under Jewish law and tradition slaves had rights and could make money. They were allowed many freedoms. Also, they did not do the work of their master, they worked with their master who owned rights to their labour not their person. Slaves were free people allowed only to work for their "owner" as a result of whatever reason they were acquired for.
Then they were not actual slaves
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
It is wrong to make someone do your labor without pay. Do your own damn labor...It is wrong to [b]own
another person as property.How do you not see that ? [/B]
How the hell do you think I feel when I'm harassed about any of my views regarding moral absolutes? I don't get the gorramn luxury of saying necrophilia, bestiality, and incest are morally wrong because they just are. No, sir, I have to stretch my imagination and justify shit by talking about how animals don't have a will and other crap.