|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
3) Remember thou keep holy the Lords day.
It's not actually called the Sabbath? Interesting.
Actually it is.  In fact, that's something they've been using/saying at my church a lot, but it's more in terms of setting a day aside for resting period, not in conjunction with going to church. For example, the one senior pastor takes Mondays as his Sabbath and that's the day he spends with his daughter, who's in preschool.
I'm probably going to regret this, because I swore I wouldn't post ot this board again, but....
Animalman, they're right, you're not making sense at all. Pariah and Wonder Boy (and so has BSAMs the last however many pages) have answered your questions, ad nausiem, but you refuse to listen, or you don't know how to read, because they clearly spell it out so well that an idiot could read/understand it. I may not post on this board anymore, but I do read it and have seen you go on and on for [pages about stuff you don't know. I've seen you take scripture and other Christian things and twist them to suit your own needs.
that's all I have to say, flame me if you want, but don't expect me to get sucked into any flame war, or post here again.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
actually since its a gay topic, it should be referred to as a flaming war......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
actually since its a gay topic, it should be referred to as a flaming war......
That...was the WORST pun I have ever seen in my time on the RKMBs.
As punishment, I hereby sentence you to...THE THOUSAND SLAPS OF DOOM!!!
SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP
Maybe THAT'll learn yas!
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Gah! Painful wordplay.  Yeah, flame wars suck. I try to be cool with everyone, but it doesn't always work. Differences of opinion, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Egads, your like locusts. Animalman was pretty clear & factual about the civil unions not being equal to marriage. I don't know how you can turn it into otherwise.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
p
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
.
actually since its a gay topic, it should be referred to as a flaming war......
.
.
That...was the WORST pun I have ever seen in my time on the RKMBs.
.
As punishment, I hereby sentence you to...THE THOUSAND SLAPS OF DOOM!!!
.
SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP ...
Maybe THAT'll learn yas!
Thanks to both of you for the much-needed levity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
p
I said something, but I articulated it wrong. I tried to find out how to word it, but then I realized I didn't know how and I didn't feel like figuring out how......Yeah.
I just wanted to say thanks for being informative. I wanted to say a few other things, but that was generally it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
p
I said something, but I articulated it wrong. I tried to find out how to word it, but then I realized I didn't know how and I didn't feel like figuring out how......Yeah.
Gotcha.
Quote:
I just wanted to say thanks for being informative. I wanted to say a few other things, but that was generally it.
My pleasure. It's what I'm here for - to bring enlightenment, humor, and punishment to bad punsters.
(Does anyone think it's interesting that "pun" is part of the word "punish?")
Last edited by Darknight613; 2004-03-09 3:59 AM.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
(Does anyone think it's interesting that "pun" is part of the word "punish?")
It's horrible, but I can't help but .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Thanks to both of you for the much-needed levity.
*bows* Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week! Please remember to tip your waitress!
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
The true meaning of God’s words was misconstrued by his children. So, he corrected his children and imbued upon them knowledge of etiquette. The situation is static. If you’re doing good DIRECTLY, you can work on Sunday.
Right, exactly. The meaning of the word was misinterpreted, and Jesus clarified. This is the point I've been trying to make.
So why were you saying otherwise before?
Quote:
Animalman, generalized opinions in the (pseudo)Catholic communities and individuals who have different interpretations of God other than what the Bible has interpreted for them means they’re not full Catholics.
Then most Catholics in Texas must not be fully Catholic.
Quote:
Like I said before; to be a Christian or Catholic, it takes a certain amount of agreeance and belief in the Bible. i.e. all of it. Look inside any Catechism book and you’ll find that this belief is taught and circulated throughout the Church—And for any practicing Catholic, it is required.
Then I've met hundreds of people who think they're Catholic, but according you, aren't.
Quote:
Side note: I know a lot of Catholic Schools, and never have I heard this belief questioned by general public of the schools/staff of said schools. Which ones have you been around exactly?
This is the deep south, so there are dozens of Catholic schools in the area. I went to a Jesuit high school. I knew kids from plenty of others.
Most view the Bible as a guide for good living, and that the fundamental requirement for being Christian was to recognize Jesus Christ as God. They also realized that the Bible was not directly from God, but the interpretation of God through man. Without this realization, think about where our society would be now. I know it's an old argument, but it's a good argument.
Quote:
Now, this may not contradict anything you said, but it still raises the question: Why mention blasphemy in changing scripture when Jesus is the only one being implied as having done it, and then afterwards say that Jesus didn’t count in the first place?
Because it goes back to what you yourself were doing(what I thought you'd argue) just a few posts ago. You seem to argue that a person can just look at the commandments and clearly determine that the predominant theme is loving each other, then arrive at the position that loving each other is the most important aspect of a good life.
In the time of Jesus, to make such an assumption with holy scripture would be considered blasphemous. Jesus removed that burden from you, by saying what no regular man could have previously.
Quote:
That damage eventually stops, because the vagina evolves to a consistent dick size and because of the differing quality of the vagina to the sphincter of natural lubrication. The fetish of anal sex may be loved by a bunch of people, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’d need to exercise and infinitely greater amount of caution to participate in it. This makes vaginal sex not only safer, but also easier (and easier to be safer). So, anyway, while damage stops for the vagina, it just keeps on going with the ass.
Yes, there's a greater risk of pain, but the fact remains, if it's exercised an intelligent manner, it can be fine. The same is true for vaginal sex, though, as stated, the precautions aren't quite as numerous.
Quote:
Heh! Are you gonna tell me I’m wrong on this one from the scientific angle? The sphincter is meant to relieve the body of waste and that’s all. If you have a theory of why it SHOULD evolve or how it COULD evolve into a body part that was meant for insertion AS WELL AS excreting with as much results as having two separate holes for two different functions…Then I’d love to here it.
Again, this is waaaaaay off topic, but it could evolve, because evolution is change based on necessity.
Quote:
This is true, but it’s not the ONLY reason. The abominable act is also complemented by physical abuse towards your neighbor AND yourself.
Again, if done correctly, the abuse is minimal.
..and also again, there is physical damage done in vaginal sex as well.
We're going in circles here.
Quote:
If you remember the Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” and all it entails, we’d see that not only the extermination of life is a sin, but also that hurting the body in general is a huge sin.
By that logic, impregnation is a sin, as is loss of virginity. We've covered this.
Quote:
Sodomy is a type of way to hurt the body—Gentle or not, it leaves lasting (short or long depending on sexual habits) effects.
As gone over before, that's not necessarily true.
Quote:
Yes there is. My entire goings on about the sturdiness of the vagina compared to the rectum is based on the high risk of semen getting into the bloodstream. I mean, it’s the MAIN thing. Obviously AIDS and HIV resides in higher importance above all, so I focused on them. Anyway, they’re just the tip of the Ice burg.
Considering what you're about to say, I don't get why you'd even mention HIV....
Quote:
A monogamous relationship doesn’t sturdy up the colon, nor does it change the scenario of lacking condoms and careful consideration. They may not get AIDS or HIV, but….
http://www.ivillagehealth.com/experts/infectious/qas/0,,416911_173045,00.html
Anal sex can result in a variety of illnesses. I will mention only the more serious. A rare but life-threatening complication of anal sex is rupture of the rectum, resulting in a severe bacterial infection. This can occur with anal sex and with the insertion of various objects into the rectum. Care must be taken to avoid serious injury to the area.
Pelvic inflammatory disease has similar principle. The inflammation is usually due to an STD, but not always. It's another "rare but life-threatening" case.
Quote:
Homosexual men in the United States have HIV at a higher rate than heterosexual men, but this is not true outside the Western world.
Actually, according to some physicians, including Dr. King K. Holmes of the Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, this isn't true anymore. The risk is still greater with homosexuals, though.
Quote:
Other viruses can be transmitted through anal sex quite easily. These include hepatitis B and hepatitis C, which cause liver disease. Possibly Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), which causes mono, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) can also be transmitted in this way. Another cause of liver disease is the hepatitis A virus. It is transmitted through contact with the feces of someone with the virus, so anal sex may increase the risk of acquiring that infection.
....but if they're tested it doesn't matter.
Quote:
So what you’re saying is; you’d condone a couple who put their lives at risk by hurting each other like those couples I saw in the movie Crash (waste of my fucking time). Or (as I exemplified before) the people who’d commit suicide together just to get the point across that they love one another.
No, I wouldn't, and that's a ridiculous comparison.
What I would condone, as I've said all along, are two monogamous people taking the necessary precautions before having sex. Getting tested for STD's, using a condom, etc.
It applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Quote:
Prioritizing would mean to exclude everything else if any situation would for call for the certain circumstances.
....that's quite a reach, Pariah.
No, what prioritizing means is.....prioritizing. Listing in order of importance. Period.
This is what I mean when I say you're reading what you want to read into it.
Quote:
Ah. Resorting Whomod’s and Jim Jackson’s tactics are we? When one feels the need to get defensive and/or post snarky remarks, it usually means they’re getting desperate.
If you'd like to consider it snarky, you're more than welcome to. I saw it as a perfectly reasonable possibility, given the arguments you've been making.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Ummmm. Are my posts so confusing and inane that no one responds to them ? Or is there something more devious afoot?
Whatever....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Pig Iron said:
Ummmm. Are my posts so confusing and inane that no one responds to them ? Or is there something more devious afoot?
Whatever....
Your words were stand alone Pig Iron, and I, myself, have no disagreements with you. I mean, the fashion of reasoning you used, I feel, was wrong, but had an outcome I agreed with. Due to that outcome, I didn't feel like getting into it.
Animalman though, I see as wrong through and through. And he won't. Stop. Making. SCARECROWS!!! 
None the less, because I Iike to torture myself, I'm gonna reply anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
After reading some of these responses, I have to agree with Sammitch and others, I think this has gotten way out of hand. I apologize for whatever part I've played in this turning into a quasi-flame war. That really wasn't my intention.
In fact, I had hoped to appease both sides of the argument. While neither religious nor homosexual, I felt I had enough experience with each party to see that the real enemy was, as usual, the government. Politicans, big businesses, the insurance companies, anyone and everyone that encompasses and creates "the system". Not gays or Christians/Catholics/Jews/Muslims.
Funny(and sad) how my internet life reflects my real one. Inspired in part by this very discussion, I've been writing my term paper on the issue. My purpose was to mediate between the two sides. As part of that paper I tried to involve my friends in the debate to get their ideas. Now, my Catholic friends say I've been poisoned by gay America, and all my liberal friends say I've bought into fascism. Clearly, I failed to realize that trying to play mediator doesn't work.
I said what I wanted to say. Hopefully that's enough, because it's all I can do.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
2) Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy God in vain. (OH MY GODDDDD!!!)
3) Remember thou keep holy the Lords day. (actually it's still the sabbath folks.)
6) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Because God made sex a sacred act only to be practiced between a (male/female) married couples, to destroy that sacredness would be a great offense. And because we would be using our bodies in such a way that he did not WANT them to be used, it would just make it even worse—Especially if sexual stimulation was induced by homosexual abominations. The same goes for masturbation. (SO MASTURBATION IS ALSO AN ABOMINATION??? I guess all of mankind will burn with one notable exception on these boards)
9) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. JENNA JAMESON IS MARRIED, ISN'T SHE?
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods. KEEPING UP WITH THE JONESES
Quote:
Perhaps you read what you wanted to read into what I said, simply because I have the audacity to disagree with you.
Ah. Resorting Whomod’s and Jim Jackson’s tactics are we? When one feels the need to get defensive and/or post snarky remarks, it usually means they’re getting desperate.
I've never felt that I was competing in this topic so i've never felt "desperate" mainly because I firmly beleive that your brand of intolerance and bigotry demonstrated here will be gone in another 10-15 years or so.
What I have found comforting is that here again we are at a cultural crossroads where we can test our worth sociologically. Sure, after something is accepted as the norm (such as equal rights, sufferage, interracial relations etc.) in society, it is damn easy to praise the people who got us there to more enlightened waters.
I'm sure you'll be hard pressed to find a person today who'll boast proudly that he spat on diners trying to be served at a "whites only" counter (or even found the idea reasonable) unless of course he's just an unrepentant bigot. But at the time, you had literally millions of people who thought inequality was reasonable and had just as good arguments as the lot of you. Too bad there was no internet back in those days. It would have been interesting to see us back then arguing the same shit with the same conviction about the bible, tradition, "liberal" northerners, and 'seperate but equal'. "Why won't she move"[ to the back of the bus??]"
As i said, this will undoubtedly be seen 20 years on as a cultural crossroads. And i'll be here to remind us all that some of us were lacking in understanding exactly what equality for ALL means.
If I were Animalman, I certainly wouldn't apologize for further aggravating the already aggravated and hateful. If anyone is "desperate" it's all these right wing christians I see on TV every day foaming at the mouth and in a panic over the rising crest of this. Of course serving as a shining example of 'Jesus' love' for all to see.
Standing up for whats right even when there is an angry mob, ESPECIALLY if there is an angry mob, IMO is when it counts the most.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-03-10 9:55 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
March 8, 2004
THE NATION
Seattle to Recognize Gay Spouses
From Associated Press
SEATTLE — Seattle's mayor said Sunday the city would begin recognizing the marriages of gay and lesbian employees who tie the knot elsewhere, although it would not conduct its own same-sex weddings.
Mayor Greg Nickels was expected to sign an executive order today giving same-sex spouses of city employees all the benefits of heterosexual spouses, including health insurance.
He also planned to send a proposal to the City Council to protect the rights of same-sex married couples in Seattle.
"The basic message is one of fairness," Nickels said. But he said he cannot follow the lead of mayors in San Francisco and New Paltz, N.Y., by allowing same-sex weddings because counties, not cities, have the authority to issue marriage licenses in Washington.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342 |
Quote:
Pig Iron said:
Ummmm. Are my posts so confusing and inane that no one responds to them ?
I've read them - and I applaud them. Especially the first one on page 35.
And I agree to extent. I believe if we're going to take God for the Bible's worth, then just about anything we do in modern society is out. From T.V., dancing, waging war, working at your job on Sunday instead of churching it and spending the day with family, science, science fiction, comics (with higher beings and Gods -because, even though it is just entertainment, you must entertain the idea). So, once again, you have a core group of people that pick and choose sins - then call others out for doing the same thing. Nitpicking. Interpretations on God's true meaning? It's all about the interpreter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Tell that to my roommate (Chewy Walrus). He has to take hours upon hours of classes in how to interpret all of that. I've had to write papers on interpretation myself. It's time-consuming, but it'd definitely clear the air.  Or else lead us even deeper into the flaming... Yeah, probably not a good idea. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Gah!
Painful wordplay.
Yeah, flame wars suck.
I try to be cool with everyone, but it doesn't always work. Differences of opinion, I guess.
I can't speak for all the lefty/liberals, but you always seemed like a decent guy to me Captain.
I don't have a problem with people who hold different opinions to mine (heck, I might even learn something). Further, I think it's pretty normal to think someone with a different opinion is foolish or misguided, if not, our own opinions wouldn't feel right to us. But, I'm a firm believer in that sometimes we have to take the old "agree to disagree" route to have a civil society.
However, some seem to think that those who disagree with them are less than human - next stop, intolerance, hate, and persecution. Those types I do have a problem with. Especially when they cloak their hates in religion, nationalism, and patriotism. Three concepts that are very dangerous, in and of themselves, because of the passions/deep feelings they inspire. When these concepts are manipulated by the type of persons I mentioned above (the haters, such as Adolf Hitler), or just by the unscrupulous amoung us (which is where I'd place persons like George W. Bush or Louis Farakhan) then they just go off the scale and become a true threat to the whole human species. Because these types of persons will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. They'll take the world down in flames before they'll concede the field.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
When ideology and beleif come before parental love and acceptance.
Quote:
March 10, 2004
Encircled by their feelings
The son of the state's leading opponent of gay marriage weds his partner in San Francisco with a symbolic ring.
By Shawn Hubler, Times Staff Writer
SAN FRANCISCO — The diamond in the ring he held had been passed down by his father. So had his bearing, the stance of a former fighter pilot and Gulf War veteran.
But it was the painful distance between father and son that stood at the fore as David Knight, the gay son of California's leading opponent of same-sex marriage, wed his longtime partner here on Tuesday.
"I'm not here to confront my father; I'm here to confront his politics," the son of Sen. William "Pete" Knight (R-Palmdale) said carefully. He did not want to hurt his 75-year-old parent, he said, but neither could he "just hide from him."
The middle son of the conservative author of Proposition 22, which defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, David Knight, now a 43-year-old woodworker, and Joseph Lazzaro, a 39-year-old specialist in interior architecture, kissed and held hands as they were pronounced "spouses for life" under the landmark rotunda where more than 3,600 gay and lesbian couples have married since Feb. 12.
The two men, partners for 10 years, live in Baltimore and had a civil union ceremony two years ago in Vermont. But, they said, they felt compelled to travel to Knight's home state when San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples last month.
In a wave of civil disobedience that the elder Knight has denounced as a "sham" and a "sideshow," gays and lesbians have been married in New Mexico, New York and Oregon, in addition to the ceremonies here that have been solemnized in defiance of state law.
Tuesday's ceremony, conducted at City Hall by a deputy marriage commissioner who gasped, "How brave, how marvelous," when he was told afterward who the younger Knight was, lent an intensely personal footnote to a highly public issue. Though many parents struggle when they learn that a child is gay or lesbian, most families work through such issues in private. The powerful rift between politician and son, however, has for several years now been a poignant subtext to California's same-sex marriage debate.
Sen. Knight, who represents a solidly conservative Republican district, became nationally famous as the driving force behind Proposition 22 — or the "Knight initiative," as it was colloquially known — which passed with more than 61% of the vote four years ago. His well-funded Proposition 22 Defense and Education Fund has since gone to court to challenge San Francisco's decision to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.
"I love my son, but we continue to disagree on this issue," the senator said in a prepared statement, adding that he would not comment further on what he deems "a personal family matter."
Though the elder Knight lost a gay brother to AIDS in 1996 — the year his son told him of his sexual orientation — he has said he sees it as his responsibility to prevent acceptance of homosexuality in society's mainstream.
"They want to be visible; they want to be accepted as normal people living a lifestyle that should be accepted as normal. That's the problem. If they weren't pushing so hard to be out and accepted, I don't think anybody would care," the senator told The Times in a 1999 interview.
Last month, in separate comments, he referred to same-sex marriage as "the biggest public policy issue since slavery" and expressed outrage that the issue will probably be decided not at the ballot box but in the courts.
David Knight, whose mother died when he was young, said he had struggled with the decision to join the gay wedding march in San Francisco, and dragged his feet when Lazzaro suggested they fly west last month.
"I have my own business. I don't like to just up and leave everything hanging. We weren't sure if we'd get in, or if it would all be shut down," he said. "And it does stir up some of the old emotions from four years ago."
Once close — the son had joined the Air Force to emulate his father, a record-setting test pilot — the two men scarcely spoke after David Knight came out. At the time, a series of seizures had ended his career as a pilot and, liberated, he had told his father about his sexual orientation. When he brought Lazzaro to dinner one subsequent Thanksgiving, the attempt elicited an icy rejection, he said, calling it "one of the most excruciating and painful events any of us had ever gone through."
The rift worsened in 1999 during the Proposition 22 campaign, when the Knight family's private angst entered the public record. As anti-gay rhetoric intensified, David Knight published an Opinion page essay in The Times criticizing his father's initiative as "a blind, uncaring, uninformed, knee-jerk reaction to a subject about which he knows nothing and wants to know nothing."
"I called him before it ran, to give him a heads-up, and got a couple quick phone calls from him that week," David Knight said, but after the measure passed, communication effectively ended. The son said that six months ago, he called his father "just out of the blue, to see if we couldn't slowly try to mend, but it was futile."
David Knight said the conversation dissuaded him from giving his father, whom he called "kind of a knot-head," a second "heads-up" about his decision to come to San Francisco, though he did tell his two brothers, who he said were supportive and who presumably passed the information along.
"I love my father dearly and I miss him," he said. "But if he's going to continue to attack something that affects me and affects my friends, and do something that I believe is wrong, I can't just not try to make my own statement. I'm out here to confront something I believe in very strongly — and that he believes in very strongly the other way."
During the ceremony at City Hall, the two men, who were introduced by David Knight's late gay uncle, re-exchanged the rings they have worn since their civil union as a sign of their mutual commitment. The one worn by Lazzaro held a diamond that had been passed down to Knight by his father when he was 21.
In a perfect world, the younger Knight said, his father would see that the ring symbolizes his love for Lazzaro as much as, say, the ring his brother gave represents his love for his wife.
"I want my father to think, just think," he said. "I want him to realize that we too are committed to each other. That we too are family."
Truly sad.
David knights editorial against his fathers initiative
Last edited by whomod; 2004-03-11 6:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Oh look mommy, a dumbass. Quote:
50 CENT SLAMS 'FAGGOTS'
50 CENT is risking the wrath of gay rights supporters following a controversial interview with PLAYBOY magazine.
The rapper is likely to follow in the footsteps of his mentors Dr Dre and Eminem, who have both come under fire in the past for anti-homosexual comments.
In the interview, 50 Cent is quoted as saying: "I ain't into faggots, I don't like gay people around me, because I'm not comfortable with what their thoughts are. I'm not prejudiced. I just don't go with gay people and kick it - we don't have that much in common. I'd rather hang out with a straight dude."
He added: "But women who like women, that's cool."
According to MTV News, the comments came after 50 admitted that his mother was bisexual.
"It's OK to write that I'm prejudiced," he said. "This is as honest as I could possibly be with you. When people become celebrities they change the way they speak. But my conversation with you is exactly the way I would have a conversation on the street. We refer to gay people as f****ts, as h**os. It could be disrespectful, but that's the facts."
Also in the interview, 50 tells of the first time he ever shot someone, discusses the times he has been shot as well as revealing plans to build a community centre for children.
Published: 11-03-2004-11-21
It really galls me when one minority participates in the marginalization of another.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342 |
I saw this on another board - and someone asked me if I was offended - normally, maybe a little - but not by someone at an intelligence level lower than Mike Tyson's.
Like him and Dre and Eminem aren't doin' it!
Also love how he points out the belief that gay women aren't even considered in the same group.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 28,009
Inglourious Basterd!!! 15000+ posts
|
|
Inglourious Basterd!!! 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 28,009 |
That's strange. He seemed so intelligent and well-spoken in other interviews. Are you SURE that Playboy didn't take certain liberties with this one??? 
Uschi said:I won't rape you, I'll just fuck you 'till it hurts and then not stop and you'll cry. MisterJLA: RACKS so hard, he called Jim Rome "Chris Everett." In Him, all porn is possible. He is far above mentions in so-called "blogs." RACK him, lest ye be lost! "I can't even brush my teeth without gagging!" - Tommy Tantillo: Wank & Cry, heckpuppy, and general laughingstock ![[Linked Image from i6.photobucket.com]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/JoeMama13/RedSoxBanner05.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Top Stories - Reuters Bush Tells Evangelicals He Will Fight Gay Marriage Thu Mar 11,12:07 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Thursday sought to solidify his standing with evangelical Christians by restating support for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage as part of his championship of conservative causes.
"I will defend the sanctity of marriage against activist courts and local officials who want to redefine marriage. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution," Bush, himself a born-again Christian, told the National Association of Evangelicals Convention in Colorado via satellite from the White House.
"I support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman," Bush said.
The president has largely steered clear of the thorny political issue since announcing his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on Feb. 24.
Bush seized on the issue after legal developments in San Francisco, where thousands of marriage licenses have been issued to gays and lesbians, and in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court ruled gay couples had the right to wed.
The move could help bolster his support among conservative Christians, a critical base for Bush, a Republican, in the November presidential election. With some polls showing him trailing Democratic challenger John Kerry, analysts say Bush will need to energize his base. Amending the U.S. Constitution is a difficult task. It can take years to win the support of two-thirds of the U.S. House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the 50 states. In addition to gay marriage, Bush touted his decision last year to sign a ban on a type of late-term abortion and said, "We will vigorously defend this law against any attempt to overturn it in the courts." He said he was working with the U.S. Congress to pass a "comprehensive and effective" ban on human cloning -- another hot button issue for Christian conservatives. He also called on Congress to send him legislation that would make killing or harming a "child in utero" a federal crime. Critics said the bill undermines abortion rights by treating the fetus or embryo as a person, although bill sponsors said they included language that explicitly excludes abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
This one I relished for the delicious irony. Quote:
March 11, 2004
Cheney Figures in Ad Opposing Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Gay Republicans' spots include remarks made by vice president, whose daughter is a lesbian.
By Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — A new ad paid for by a gay Republican group uses Vice President Dick Cheney to help make its case against a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
The 30-second television commercial shows Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, at a debate during the 2000 campaign discussing gay rights. "We live in a free society … and I think that means people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into."
Cheney added: "The matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate…. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."
The words "We agree" then appear in the ad, which is sponsored by the Log Cabin Republicans. The commercial begins airing in the Washington area today and is to be shown later in seven states viewed as key battlegrounds in the general election: Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. The ad includes scenes of 1960s civil rights protests and signs that say "Colored Waiting Room" to argue that gay marriage is a matter of individual liberty.
Many gay Republicans were among those angered last month when President Bush endorsed the idea of a constitutional amendment to ensure that marriage was sanctioned only between a man and a woman. Bush's backing followed San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to allow gay marriages in that city, in defiance of state law.
Cheney said last week that he supported Bush's decision, which also was hailed by an array of conservative groups.
Log Cabin's executive director, Patrick Guerriero, said the group decided to launch its campaign "because the exclusion and discrimination embodied in this amendment violates the principles upon which the Republican Party is founded."
He said that donations to the group had grown since Bush's announcement and that the organization hoped to collect up to $1 million for the ad campaign.
Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said, "We respect differences of opinion in the Republican Party, and we feel that during this election the Republicans will unite behind the president on the big issues facing this country — the war on terror and growing the economy."
The College Republican National Committee also came to Bush's defense. "President Bush is exactly right when he says there is a consensus among Americans to protect the institution of marriage," said Eric Hoplin, the group's chairman. "If the Log Cabin Republicans are the loyal Republicans they claim to be, they should spend their millions on electing Republicans, not defeating them."
But then being a Log Cabin Republican is like being a NAACP Dixiecrat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15 |
There. I've listed the only people there who aern't fucktards.
And here's the fucktards.
1)Mr.JLA
2)Dave TWB
3)Pariah
4)The G-Man
Everyone else there falls in between the 2 poles.
Rob tries to keep it cool so I respect that. Still, I don't think he's all that removed from the latter list though.
You're welcome.
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg) [/center] [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg) [/center]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
March 08, 2004  March 09, 2004  March 10, 2004  March 11, 2004  March 12, 2004  March 13, 2004 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
That is cute. Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Your emotionally charged stereotypes of anyone who opposes gay marriage is just so much posturing pretentious drivel, Dave.
Attacking the man, not the argument..... again.
Quote:
I don't believe what Animalman posted above. That is a distortion by advocates of gay marriage, I'm sure.
Back up your belief with facts.
Quote:
I fail to see how civil unions as an alternative creates "an apartheid".
Since gays retain all the rights to insurance, health benefits, spousal estates, etc., under proposed civil unions.
As I've said endlessly, if gays really need or deserve these rights, civil unions gives them those rights to benefits, without urinating on religious freedom, and outlawing the ability of Christians and other groups to teach the real moral standard their Bible teaches. Instead of a politically correct gayed-down repression of the truth.
That is my major distaste with gay rights.
And I notice in your arguments, that you ignore and don't give a flying crap about lost religious freedom in Canada that I've described above. Which is a precursor for what is planned for the United States.
I missed Canada. What has happened there?
"Urinating on religious freedom"? How does gay marriage urinate on your ability to practice as a Christian?
Quote:
True freedom allows Christians to practice their religion in the scriptural form God gave it to them (and I've posted earlier several times about the historical evidence for scripture being accurately preserved for 2000 years, with at least 60,000 handwritten manuscripts in existence from within 100 years of Christ's death and resurrection.)
True freedom doesn't proclaim "freedom" for gays, while taking freedom of religion from the 33% of the U.S. population who attend church weekly, and the larger 80% of the U.S. population who mostly don't attend church but still describe themselves when polled as "Christian".
And Jewish. And Muslim. And Hindu. And Buddhist. Or agnostic, who just don't approve of the gay lifestyle, and don't want their goverment to force it on them.
If civil unions didn't offer this alternative in the first place (equal rights, but within a secular framework, that doesn't outlaw religious teachings that homosexuality is immoral, or change the definition of marriage out from under Christians and others), then why would liberals suggest it at all? It's not like civil unions are the idea of conservatives. Howard Dean's state (New Hampshire) already has civil union as its legal standard.
In any case, I fail to see the need for rude stereotypes of any dissenters of your oh-so-superior-and-enlightened views on the subject of gay rights.
As a wise man said on the DC boards: You have an opinion. I have and opinion. Let's learn to deal with it.
And as I've said elsewhere:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".
I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.
I read the "bigot" label the same way.
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
Lets analyse your logical process.
Allowing gays to get married doesn't impinge at all upon your rights as a Christian anymore than allowing Jews or Muslims or atheists to get married does.
The Bible may say that homosexuality is a sin. I'm sure it also says that not believing Jesus is the Son of God is also a sin.
So, because it is a sin, gays should not get married.
By this logic, Jews, Muslims and atheists should also not get married, because it impinges upon your relgious freedom.
Your flaw in thinking, with respect, is that you view marriage as a solely religious institution, when it is not.
If any compromise between us is possible on this issue, then it would be if "marriage" was the sole and unique preserve of Christians and only Christians, and everyone else had a civil union under law which gave them equal rights as marriage.
But it doesn't work like that - I am an atheist, and I was married by a civil celebrant (both my wife and I had enough respect for churches and people's religious beliefs to avoid being hypocritical, and not to get married in a church.)
As for my stance on your position... if someone came in here and said that blacks should not have equal rights, he'd be treated with the respect he deserves. I see no difference between your view on gays and a racist's views on blacks. I have no respect for it at all, and see it as offensive as any other form of bigotry.
I know you're married to someone from a minority ethinic group. Open-mindedness on that front doesn't give you any wiggle room on your opposition to equal rights for gays.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Dave said:
That is cute.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Your emotionally charged stereotypes of anyone who opposes gay marriage is just so much posturing pretentious drivel, Dave.
Attacking the man, not the argument..... again.
You attack me with an off-topic emotional stereotype argument.
And then you attack me for stating that you attack with an emotional stereotype argument ?!?
T-Dave, you are the king of strawman argument attacks, non-sequitor attacks, name-calling, and other emotional lowbrow tactics, that completely divert from the real issue.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder boy said:
I don't believe what Animalman posted above. That is a distortion by advocates of gay marriage, I'm sure.
Quote:
Dave said:
Back up your belief with facts.
You apparently are immune to the facts, as are other liberals here. I've already posted a response to that in the last few pages. In a non-sequitor, liberals here have made the comparison of the black civil rights movement to the push for gay rights, and specifically, 'gay marriage".
But as I posted documentation of, a majority of black Americans, and many black leaders, have vocally expressed their outrage at the comparison of black civil rights to the "gay marriage" push. Which black Americans themselves call a deceit, which they do not endorse.
And I think black Americans are infinitely qualified to determine whether their own black civil rights movement is comparable to gay rights, and the push for gay marriage. As I quoted, blacks have voiced their outrage at the comparison of gay marriage to black rights.
And it is your denial of these facts that is ill-informed.
Quote:
Dave said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I fail to see how civil unions as an alternative creates "an apartheid".
Since gays retain all the rights to insurance, health benefits, spousal estates, etc., under proposed civil unions.
As I've said endlessly, if gays really need or deserve these rights, civil unions gives them those rights to benefits, without urinating on religious freedom, and outlawing the ability of Christians and other groups to teach the real moral standard their Bible teaches. Instead of a politically correct gayed-down repression of the truth.
That is my major distaste with gay rights.
And I notice in your arguments, that you ignore and don't give a flying crap about lost religious freedom in Canada that I've described above. Which is a precursor for what is planned for the United States.
I missed Canada. What has happened there?
"Urinating on religious freedom"? How does gay marriage urinate on your ability to practice as a Christian?
You asked this question again below, where I answered it:
Quote:
[Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
True freedom allows Christians to practice their religion in the scriptural form God gave it to them (and I've posted earlier several times about the historical evidence for scripture being accurately preserved for 2000 years, with at least 60,000 handwritten manuscripts in existence from within 100 years of Christ's death and resurrection.)
.
True freedom doesn't proclaim "freedom" for gays, while taking freedom of religion from the 33% of the U.S. population who attend church weekly, and the larger 80% of the U.S. population who mostly don't attend church but still describe themselves when polled as "Christian".
And Jewish. And Muslim. And Hindu. And Buddhist. Or agnostic, who just don't approve of the gay lifestyle, and don't want their goverment to force it on them.
.
If civil unions didn't offer this alternative in the first place (equal rights, but within a secular framework, that doesn't outlaw religious teachings that homosexuality is immoral, or change the definition of marriage out from under Christians and others), then why would liberals suggest it at all? It's not like civil unions are the idea of conservatives. Howard Dean's state (New Hampshire) already has civil union as its legal standard.
.
In any case, I fail to see the need for rude stereotypes of any dissenters of your oh-so-superior-and-enlightened views on the subject of gay rights.
.
As a wise man said on the DC boards: You have an opinion. I have and opinion. Let's learn to deal with it.
.
And as I've said elsewhere:
.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
.
I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".
.
I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.
.
I read the "bigot" label the same way.
.
--------------------
"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."
Quote:
Dave said:
.
Lets analyse your logical process.
Oh yes. Let's.
Quote:
Dave said:
.
Allowing gays to get married doesn't impinge at all upon your rights as a Christian anymore than allowing Jews or Muslims or atheists to get married does.
.
The Bible may say that homosexuality is a sin. I'm sure it also says that not believing Jesus is the Son of God is also a sin.
.
So, because it is a sin, gays should not get married.
.
By this logic, Jews, Muslims and atheists should also not get married, because it impinges upon your relgious freedom.
.
Your flaw in thinking, with respect, is that you view marriage as a solely religious institution, when it is not.
.
If any compromise between us is possible on this issue, then it would be if "marriage" was the sole and unique preserve of Christians and only Christians, and everyone else had a civil union under law which gave them equal rights as marriage.
.
But it doesn't work like that - I am an atheist, and I was married by a civil celebrant (both my wife and I had enough respect for churches and people's religious beliefs to avoid being hypocritical, and not to get married in a church.)
.
As for my stance on your position... if someone came in here and said that blacks should not have equal rights, he'd be treated with the respect he deserves. I see no difference between your view on gays and a racist's views on blacks. I have no respect for it at all, and see it as offensive as any other form of bigotry.
.
I know you're married to someone from a minority ethinic group. Open-mindedness on that front doesn't give you any wiggle room on your opposition to equal rights for gays.
Again with the argument that: If there is the slightest dispute of the jay-walking law, then the law regarding murder and rape are null and void as well, and all murderers and rapists should be set free argument.
But as explored multiple times in the previous 38 pages, that's a flawed rationalization for circumventing what the Bible clearly says, about marriage (one man/one woman), and homosexuality ( a form of adultery, Biblically forbidden in the absolute harshest and clearest of terms).
And again, the state endorsement of "gay marriage" (an oxymoron) does not just allow secularist gays to marry without affecting Christians. It renders Christians' belief and statement that homosexuality is wrong and condemned by God in the Bible illegal. Which clearly infringes on Christians' ability to practice Christianity in its true form.
There is no mutual preservation of rights. Gays gain the right to marry, and Christians instantly lose their rights in the same instant.
Again, civil union is a secular alternative to changing the definition of marriage, that allows the same rights to gays in a secular framework, without taking a first step toward outlawing the practice of Christianity in its true form and Biblical standards, without turning public reading of Genesis 18 and 19 (Sodom and Gommorah) and similar verses into a "hate crime" as it is now in Canada.
If that Canadian example is not clear establishment that gay rights is done at the expense of religious freedom and the free practice of Christianity, then I don't know what is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
You apparently are immune to the facts, as are other liberals here. I've already posted a response to that in the last few pages. In a non-sequitor, liberals here have made the comparison of the black civil rights movement to the push for gay rights, and specifically, 'gay marriage".
But as I posted documentation of, a majority of black Americans, and many black leaders, have vocally expressed their outrage at the comparison of black civil rights to the "gay marriage" push. Which black Americans themselves call a deceit, which they do not endorse.
And I think black Americans are infinitely qualified to determine whether gay rights are comparable to gay rights, and the push for gay marriage. As I quoted, they have voiced their outrage at the comparison of gay marriage to black rights.
And it is your denial of these facts that is ill-informed.
I think what is needed is a bit of background on minority culture and specifically the culture of "machismo". In both the black and latino community, machismo is so great that even many homosexuals in those communities are in denail about their own sexuality. So much in fact that I've recently become aware of something called "down low". Which is minority homosexuals attempt to both be gay and not have to suffer thru the cultural stigma. In one report I saw on TV about this phenom, the gays asserted that they wearn't "gay" because to them that denoted white homosexuals and what they viewed as "sissy culture", weak. And in minority culture, there is nothing more terrible than their strong macho men being "weak". Religion also plays into all of this bagagge as most latinos have strong Roman Catholic backgrounds and many blacks have strong southern protestant upbringings. So if any rejection of homosexulaity is coming from minority communities, it has a lot to do with the same religious prejudice coming from white conservatives, magnified to the 9th power when mixed with the cultural stigma against being weak and unmasculine.
"In the absence of education most people resort to machismo". I heard that once and it is so true.
and if we're talking minority communities, I think I mentioned the Jewish community in West Hollywood a while back. If any group is qualified to talk about social rejection and prejudice I think it's the jews. They accept the gay community with open arms and support. Not because of something written in their holy books but because they actually know them and live together in the REAL world and stand up to injustice and inequality when they see it with their own eyes. After all, they both suffered just the same in the Nazi bigotry & death camps
Last edited by whomod; 2004-03-14 4:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Cheney Says He Supports Gay-Marriage Ban
Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday he supports President Bush's call for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, though one of his daughters is gay
This is another example of that persistent liberal double standard.
If a conservative comes out against something that he, or a member of his family, has not personally experienced the conservative is told "you have no experience with this. You can't judge."
But if a conservative comes out against something he has personal experience with (either himself or through a member of his family), he is told "you are a hypocrite."
Essentially, the point seems to be that liberals think that conservatives should not be allowed to express their opinions at any time whatsoever. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Cheney Says He Supports Gay-Marriage Ban
Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday he supports President Bush's call for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, though one of his daughters is gay
This is another example of that persistent liberal double standard.
If a conservative comes out against something that he, or a member of his family, has not personally experienced the conservative is told "you have no experience with this. You can't judge."
But if a conservative comes out against something he has personal experience with (either himself or through a member of his family), he is told "you are a hypocrite."
Essentially, the point seems to be that liberals think that conservatives should not be allowed to express their opinions at any time whatsoever.
This was a bit of a flip flop for our Vice President though. When it was politically in their favor in 2000, he believed this was something to be decided by the states individually. Now he changes that to one that is politically advantageous for this election. I don't think hypocrisy is to outrageous of a conclusion. Either side can be guilty of hypocrisy.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
But as I posted documentation of, a majority of black Americans, and many black leaders, have vocally expressed their outrage at the comparison of black civil rights to the "gay marriage" push. Which black Americans themselves call a deceit, which they do not endorse.
And I think black Americans are infinitely qualified to determine whether their own black civil rights movement is comparable to gay rights, and the push for gay marriage. As I quoted, blacks have voiced their outrage at the comparison of gay marriage to black rights.
And it is your denial of these facts that is ill-informed.
I would love to know where you get this information.
1) I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else can say that most blacks are "outraged" by the comparison. I, myself, have read articles that have quoted individual African-Americans on the subject, and I agree that some of them were outraged... very outraged, but I've also seen blacks who have spoken in favor of gay rights, and compared the struggle of gays to the ones we once faced. Also, I've never even seen a poll of a turly REPRESENTATIVE number of black people on the subject. Even a poll of one thousand black Americans is not enough to tell you, definitively, how black Americans feel.
2) Today's "black leaders" are generally pathetic and unworthy of discussion, especially the ones that are in the media and have voiced opinions. A great number of them are attention-seekers and not much more.
3) I also don't believe that most black people (or Americans in general) could tell you the real definition of civil rights. Being black does not make you an authority on civil rights; education does. I would venture that most people would equate civil rights with black suffrage. Their answers are uninformed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Cheney Says He Supports Gay-Marriage Ban
Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday he supports President Bush's call for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, though one of his daughters is gay
This is another example of that persistent liberal double standard.
If a conservative comes out against something that he, or a member of his family, has not personally experienced the conservative is told "you have no experience with this. You can't judge."
But if a conservative comes out against something he has personal experience with (either himself or through a member of his family), he is told "you are a hypocrite."
Essentially, the point seems to be that liberals think that conservatives should not be allowed to express their opinions at any time whatsoever.
You're totally misrepresenting the issue.
I think i posted Cheney's quotes from the 2000 debates TWICE already where he supported states deciding on the issue of gay marriage
Quote:
Here are some quotes by Vice President Dick Cheney from the 2000 vice presidential debate. On gay and lesbian relationships:
Quote:
"The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don't get to choose, and shouldn't be able to choose and say, 'You get to live free, but you don't.' "
On gay and lesbian civil unions or marriage:
Quote:
"I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."
Now if this had been John Kerrey flip flopping all over the place depending on which way the political winds were blowing, you'd be howling  , winking and chortling madly about it.
In fact, [Dick Cheney] has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue."
By now supporting a constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of gay Americans, Cheney has sold his own daughter down the river in a way that is almost mind-boggling to a parent.
Last edited by whomod; 2004-03-16 7:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Quote:
We've heard a lot about "biblical marriage" lately, largely as a defensive reaction against same-sex marriage. I read one letter to the editor written by a Lutheran pastor that claimed that "the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man to one woman." How very applicable to the contemporary situation, I thought. If the Bible really teaches that (and in such modern language too!), then we all should be paying the Bible a lot more heed.
So I picked up my Bible and looked up all the passages that have anything to do with marriage (I had help: I used a concordance). I examined the scriptural use of all the words I could think of related to marriage: marriage, marriages, marry, marries, married, wedding, weddings, wed, husband, husbands, wife, and wives.
All told I looked up over 800 references. Exempting the references which are narrative (e.g. "Adam named his wife Eve" Gen 3:20) or metaphorical (Christ's marriage to the church, Rev 21:9), I was able to distil those 825 verse references into 12 general principles: 12 Biblical "rules" or guidelines regarding marriage which encompass the gamut of scripture. I hereby present the list, with the applicable references.
12 Biblical Principles of Marriage
Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).
Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).
How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one [with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner]!
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical - but not Biblical - record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium. Unfortunately, the pastor mentioned above would have been far more correct to say that "the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenantal union of one man to as many women as he might want and can afford."
So the next time your favourite politician or preacher claims to use the Bible in support of traditional marriage, ask him or her which of these 12 principles he or she is actually advocating. Probably none. Anyone who claims to use the Bible in support of a strictly monogamous union of one male and one female based on love, mutuality, and commitment will be hard pressed to find 2,000 year-old Bible verses in support of that very modern position. In fact, I daresay they cannot. The Biblical view of marriage is not monogamous: it is not necessarily based on love, nor on any amount of mutuality.
Most Christians would consider these Biblical principles of marriage to be misogynistic and repulsive - and judging by today's standards, they'd be right. Views have changed since Biblical times, as has our concept of marriage. Some would claim that this is the result of the Holy Spirit working in our world; most agree that just about all of the changes are a good thing. But if we concede that our concept of marriage has evolved, is it not potentially arrogant to summarily discount the possibility that marriage should continue evolving, or even that it might be God's will that it do so?
From the looks of the above list, it's a good thing our perspectives have changed from the Biblical model. Thus as we continue to dialog and prayerfully discern God's will in the area of same-sex marriages, we obviously cannot consider 2,000-year-old statements made in other cultures and contexts to be all that is important.
Please do not misinterpret that I am claiming that the Bible is not important - of course it is. It is central to my faith, as it should be for any Christian. But to rely on solely the Bible is to dangerously ignore two millennia of progress in the areas of science, technology, and human rights, a sin which we dare not let ourselves commit if the church is to remain relevant to contemporary society at all.
To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees.
While of course the Bible is integral to who we are as Christians, we do ourselves, the church, and yes, God a disservice if we ignore even the possibility of a revelation more recent than 2,000 years old. While we cannot and would not want to ignore the Old and New Testaments, we also cannot ignore the Now Testament. Praise God that, consistent with the spirit of almost every Biblical narrative, God even today continuously and patiently calls us ever forward.
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/biblical_marriage.htm
Last edited by whomod; 2004-03-16 8:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Random thought - are the politicians out to get this law passed doing so mostly (or even purely) out of religious conviction? Is this law primarily motivated by religious faith? Because if it is, and the law is passed, I'm just wondering what kind of doors it could open for other religiously motivated laws - not necessarily constitutional amendments, but state laws or even city laws. It's just something to consider.
BTW, speaking of religion, I've asked this question in several threads, and I've never gotten an answer. Do Christianity and Islam have an official oral law that specifies and interprets how the laws of the Bible are to be practiced, or is the Bible all you get? If there is an oral law, does it carry the equal weight as the Bible? I'm only asking because Judiasm has both the oral law and the Tanach (The real Jewish Bible, which is composed of The Torah [Five Books Of Moses], The Book of Prophets, and The Book of Writings [psalms, proverbs, etc.]), and both count the same. So I've always wondered whether or not Christians and Muslims have an oral tradition as well.
Last edited by Darknight613; 2004-03-16 7:49 AM.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
whomod said:
Quote:
We've heard a lot about "biblical marriage" lately, largely as a defensive reaction against same-sex marriage. I read one letter to the editor written by a Lutheran pastor that claimed that "the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man to one woman." How very applicable to the contemporary situation, I thought. If the Bible really teaches that (and in such modern language too!), then we all should be paying the Bible a lot more heed.
So I picked up my Bible and looked up all the passages that have anything to do with marriage (I had help: I used a concordance). I examined the scriptural use of all the words I could think of related to marriage: marriage, marriages, marry, marries, married, wedding, weddings, wed, husband, husbands, wife, and wives.
All told I looked up over 800 references. Exempting the references which are narrative (e.g. "Adam named his wife Eve" Gen 3:20) or metaphorical (Christ's marriage to the church, Rev 21:9), I was able to distil those 825 verse references into 12 general principles: 12 Biblical "rules" or guidelines regarding marriage which encompass the gamut of scripture. I hereby present the list, with the applicable references.
12 Biblical Principles of Marriage
Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).
Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).
How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one [with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner]!
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical - but not Biblical - record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium. Unfortunately, the pastor mentioned above would have been far more correct to say that "the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenantal union of one man to as many women as he might want and can afford."
So the next time your favourite politician or preacher claims to use the Bible in support of traditional marriage, ask him or her which of these 12 principles he or she is actually advocating. Probably none. Anyone who claims to use the Bible in support of a strictly monogamous union of one male and one female based on love, mutuality, and commitment will be hard pressed to find 2,000 year-old Bible verses in support of that very modern position. In fact, I daresay they cannot. The Biblical view of marriage is not monogamous: it is not necessarily based on love, nor on any amount of mutuality.
Most Christians would consider these Biblical principles of marriage to be misogynistic and repulsive - and judging by today's standards, they'd be right. Views have changed since Biblical times, as has our concept of marriage. Some would claim that this is the result of the Holy Spirit working in our world; most agree that just about all of the changes are a good thing. But if we concede that our concept of marriage has evolved, is it not potentially arrogant to summarily discount the possibility that marriage should continue evolving, or even that it might be God's will that it do so?
From the looks of the above list, it's a good thing our perspectives have changed from the Biblical model. Thus as we continue to dialog and prayerfully discern God's will in the area of same-sex marriages, we obviously cannot consider 2,000-year-old statements made in other cultures and contexts to be all that is important.
Please do not misinterpret that I am claiming that the Bible is not important - of course it is. It is central to my faith, as it should be for any Christian. But to rely on solely the Bible is to dangerously ignore two millennia of progress in the areas of science, technology, and human rights, a sin which we dare not let ourselves commit if the church is to remain relevant to contemporary society at all.
To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees.
While of course the Bible is integral to who we are as Christians, we do ourselves, the church, and yes, God a disservice if we ignore even the possibility of a revelation more recent than 2,000 years old. While we cannot and would not want to ignore the Old and New Testaments, we also cannot ignore the Now Testament. Praise God that, consistent with the spirit of almost every Biblical narrative, God even today continuously and patiently calls us ever forward.
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/biblical_marriage.htm
I can't speak for the New Testiment quotes.
However, I can speak for the Torah verses used to back up these claims. They are taken out of context.
For example:
Quote:
Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19
This is not what it says. If you read, starting from verse 13, you will find that this is for a case of a man who has slept with his new wife and found that he hates her, for whatever reason. So he tells lies about her, in order to get out of his Ketuba, the marriage contract. In other words, he wants a divorce, without having to pay alimony. He wants to be a free man. He says that she was not a virgin when he married her. Now, this only matters b/c the woman has never been married, and sex is forbidden outside of marriage. That, and the father had to pay a hefty dowry guaranteeing her virginity. Anyway, if there is proof that she was a virgin, then it is presented, the husband is punished, and he pays a hefty fine to the woman's father. Also, he can never demand a divorce from her. That's doesn't mean divorce is forbidden. There are laws for divorce. That's why the man signs the Ketuba. It guarantees that he will financially suport his wife should they divorce, until she is remarried.
Seriously, don't take Bible quotes at face value. Always look them up and read them in context.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
Seriously, don't take Bible quotes at face value. Always look them up and read them in context.
To add to what PenWing says, there are numerous commentaries on the Torah written by some of Judaism's greatest scholars that interpret and explain what the Torah is trying to tell us, and we also have the oral law.
To add to my question about whether or not Christianity or Islam have oral laws, do they also have Biblical commentaries that explain and interpret what's going on in the Bible?
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
