Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: stuntmovie on May 30, 2008, 08:39:49 AM
-
How do you feel about California's same sex "marriage" stand?
-
it doesnt affect me either way. im not gay, i dont live in california, and more importantly....i dont really care what people want to have sex with and marry...
unless its a kid, an animal....or my anus. then we have problems....
-
Marriage has become a financial agreement, nothing more. It means little.
-
How do you feel about California's same sex "marriage" stand?
You can read 9 pages worth of opinions on the subject here http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=215262.0
-
How do you feel about California's same sex "marriage" stand?
California’s citizens or California’s Supreme Court?
-
Marriage has become a financial agreement, nothing more. It means little.
Yep, it's a contract between you your wife and the state. Unfortunately I believe it is most of the time a necessary one.
-
How do you feel about California's same sex "marriage" stand?
I'm a conservative Christian.........what do you think >:(!!
-
it doesnt affect me either way. im not gay, i dont live in california, and more importantly....i dont really care what people want to have sex with and marry...
unless its a kid, an animal....or my anus. then we have problems....
I agree 100%.
I have been married TO A WOMAN :P and divorced 3 times.
Maybe I should have tried a dude lol. :-\
-
I agree 100%.
I have been married TO A WOMAN :P and divorced 3 times.
Maybe I should have tried a dude lol. :-\
;D
-
;D
No bay, it is NOT a proposal ;)
-
No bay, it is NOT a proposal ;)
:'(
-
Actually if you are a true christian then there is no such thing as a gay marriage no matter what the goverment says. So, it's a no issue end of story.
-
Actually if you are a true christian then there is no such thing as a gay marriage no matter what the goverment says. So, it's a no issue end of story.
Now you've done it...........way to go :(
-
Now you've done it...........way to go :(
LOL seriously though, I was talkng to a couple of freinds of mine who are devout christian bible thumping Jesus lovers. ;D They were mad about this whole gay marriage thing. I told them that if you really believed in the bible then there is no issue as gays can not under the eyes of God ever be married. If they believed that, then they are putting most their faith and beliefs in the Government and not Jesus. ;) Of course this is not to say that I personally believe this, I was just trying to make a point.
-
LOL seriously though, I was talkng to a couple of freinds of mine who are devout christian bible thumping Jesus lovers. ;D They were mad about this whole gay marriage thing. I told them that if you really believed in the bible then there is no issue as gays can not under the eyes of God ever be married. If they believed that, then they are putting most their faith and beliefs in the Government and not Jesus. ;) Of course this is not to say that I personally believe this, I was just trying to make a point.
I agree with you 100% and am tempted to make similar arguments to the bible thumpers on this and similar issues.
But it is as pointless as trying to start a serious dialgue on get big ::)
They have a BELIEF system , not based on logic or science but blind , obedient faith in their beliefs.
Trying to make a LOGICAL argument is NOT what they respeond to.
It is like trying to convince a drunk , why he shouldn't drink, while he is looped to the gills .
-
I was just trying to make a point.
its an excellent one you made.....
its one of those "sins" that i simply dont understand why the christiancommunity gets so worked up about. maybe it hits close to home for them because of their suppressed sexual identities, or maybe its because their own leaders indulge in the occasional "ppe pee" touch. Why would anyone care...chistian or other...what someone does in that regard. how does it affect anyone but the two that are in a relationship? christians have the idea that homosexuality (men AND women) is this perverse subculture of depravity.
guess what...
the whole world is depraved...not just homos....
besides....i think old people sex should be banned...thats some shit i dont ever want to see!!!! :-X ;D
-
its an excellent one you made.....
its one of those "sins" that i simply dont understand why the christiancommunity gets so worked up about. maybe it hits close to home for them because of their suppressed sexual identities, or maybe its because their own leaders indulge in the occasional "ppe pee" touch. Why would anyone care...chistian or other...what someone does in that regard. how does it affect anyone but the two that are in a relationship? christians have the idea that homosexuality (men AND women) is this perverse subculture of depravity.
guess what...
the whole world is depraved...not just homos....
besides....i think old people sex should be banned...thats some shit i dont ever want to see!!!! :-X ;D
The sex issue in religion like Christianity comes down to the idea that if the organizers of the faith can control your most personal desires they then control YOUR mind.
Seriously, most follow the faith they grew up in. Why? It sure isn't genetic or biology ,but 100% cultural.
Cultural norms are learned and as one grows up, the youthful mind is more easy to influence.
-
The sex issue in religion like Christianity comes down to the idea that if the organizers of the faith can control your most personal desires they then control YOUR mind.
Seriously, most follow the faith they grew up in. Why? It sure isn't genetic or biology ,but 100% cultural.
Cultural norms are learned and as one grows up, the youthful mind is more easy to influence.
its cyclical.... it will never end. closed minds teach closed mindedness...
-
I don't care what other people do in their bedroom.
I don't care about civil unions - two people growing old together does benefit society, and sure, give them the same financial benefits that married couples receive.
now, if I was with my son playing at a public park, and a boy/girl were kissing, I might not think it was a big deal. If two grown men were embrased and swapping spit, yeah, I would take my kid somewhere else to play. Not because I don't respect their right to do that - just because I'd rather my son try his first kiss with a girl, not with a boy. if my son ever did go that route, I'd be a little weirded out, but if he was truly happy, the goal of this life, well then I'd be okay with it. I'd miss grandkids though.
-
I don't care what other people do in their bedroom.
I don't care about civil unions - two people growing old together does benefit society, and sure, give them the same financial benefits that married couples receive.
now, if I was with my son playing at a public park, and a boy/girl were kissing, I might not think it was a big deal. If two grown men were embrased and swapping spit, yeah, I would take my kid somewhere else to play. Not because I don't respect their right to do that - just because I'd rather my son try his first kiss with a girl, not with a boy. if my son ever did go that route, I'd be a little weirded out, but if he was truly happy, the goal of this life, well then I'd be okay with it. I'd miss grandkids though.
EXACTLY!
And I think this can also be the counter argument for christians against the idea posed by Disgusted/Howie.
It's not that two people of the same sex are getting "married" that's the big problem, it's the projection and gross distortion of what a "family" is, or should be. I'll admit the definition of a true father has been lost for some time but I think we're still hanging on a thread to what at least a "family" should somewhat resemble.... :-\
-
A lot of people are looking in the wrong places for answers. EVERYONE needs to live their life the way they see fit and most importantly EVERYONE NEEDS TO MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS AND STOP TRYING TO CHANGE EVERYONE ELSE INTO BELIEVING THE WAY THEY DO!!!!!!!!
Why make other peoples problems their own? I have enough of my own problems without messin in others affairs I have no right to meddle in.
-
EVERYONE needs to live their life the way they see fit and most importantly EVERYONE NEEDS TO MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS AND STOP TRYING TO CHANGE EVERYONE ELSE INTO BELIEVING THE WAY THEY DO!!!!!!!!
But that's the American way =)
Seriously though, I couldn't agree with you more. In regards to the Christians and their beliefs, if they were "true" Christians then they wouldn't care either way because it's not their place to judge others. I'm not religious at all but I've read a lot of the Bible and a lot of Bhudism as well as other religious systems. There are actually quite a few good things that Jesus said that are excellent ways to live your life, it's just said people forget all of that and get caught up in their holier than though contempt for anyone who disagrees with them.
-
But that's the American way =)
Seriously though, I couldn't agree with you more. In regards to the Christians and their beliefs, if they were "true" Christians then they wouldn't care either way because it's not their place to judge others. I'm not religious at all but I've read a lot of the Bible and a lot of Bhudism as well as other religious systems. There are actually quite a few good things that Jesus said that are excellent ways to live your life, it's just said people forget all of that and get caught up in their holier than though contempt for anyone who disagrees with them.
Sounds like Bin Laden and his group... :-[
-
gayer than denouncing talibans viewpoint towards women.
-
I'm a conservative Christian.........what do you think >:(!!
I think with 3 marriages to your name, you've abused the institution more than some gay couple. 8)
-
I think with 3 marriages to your name, you've abused the institution more than some gay couple. 8)
Ouch! LOL :-[
-
EXACTLY!
And I think this can also be the counter argument for christians against the idea posed by Disgusted/Howie.
It's not that two people of the same sex are getting "married" that's the big problem, it's the projection and gross distortion of what a "family" is, or should be. I'll admit the definition of a true father has been lost for some time but I think we're still hanging on a thread to what at least a "family" should somewhat resemble.... :-\
Yes, but what actual harm does it do to anyone else if a gay couple gets married?
Other than some vague, subjective stuff about some moral value of "the family".
One would think that gay marriage is going to cause Ward Cleaver to go fruity and leave June , Wally and the Beaver?!
It is pretty simple to me, if you are GAY, than you are GAY, if you are straight you are straight. You can't catch GAY like some cold virus.
-
Yes, but what actual harm does it do to anyone else if a gay couple gets married?
Other than some vague, subjective stuff about some moral value of "the family".
One would think that gay marriage is going to cause Ward Cleaver to go fruity and leave June , Wally and the Beaver?!
It is pretty simple to me, if you are GAY, than you are GAY, if you are straight you are straight. You can't catch GAY like some cold virus. are you referring to AIDS?
"ward, I think you were a little hard on the Beaver....so was eddie hascal, wally, and Mrs Cleaver" 8)
-
"ward, I think you were a little hard on the Beaver....so was eddie hascal, wally, and Mrs Cleaver" 8)
Ward is da man, and June is uptight with a firm booty
-
I think with 3 marriages to your name, you've abused the institution more than some gay couple. 8)
Ouch...well played sir.
-
But that's the American way =)
Seriously though, I couldn't agree with you more. In regards to the Christians and their beliefs, if they were "true" Christians then they wouldn't care either way because it's not their place to judge others. I'm not religious at all but I've read a lot of the Bible and a lot of Bhudism as well as other religious systems. There are actually quite a few good things that Jesus said that are excellent ways to live your life, it's just said people forget all of that and get caught up in their holier than though contempt for anyone who disagrees with them.
Contempt works both ways, as you can tell by some of the comments made by those who think gay "marriage" should be legal.
The irony of it that some gay activists speak about being tolerant but are anything but that to those who don't share their views, hence the "bigot", "homophobe" labels.
I'd still like to know why those who support gay "marriage" don't simply do what their opponents do: Get petitions signed and get a constitutional amendment put on their states' ballot to clearly define marriage. There's nothing preventing them from beating the streets, starting drives, etc.
-
I said before, I'll say it again......
Gays were lucky, as they had an excuse for not getting married. It's too bad they won't ban "straight" marriages...... ;)
Marriages today are a fucking joke. Hell, maybe they always have been. I love how the idiots talk about the "sanctity" of marriage. Is there such a thing? :-\
-
I said before, I'll say it again......
Gays were lucky, as they had an excuse for not getting married. It's too bad they won't ban "straight" marriages...... ;)
Marriages today are a fucking joke. Hell, maybe they always have been. I love how the idiots talk about the "sanctity" of marriage. Is there such a thing? :-\
haha so true.
Same idiots who are pro-life. ::) Gay marriage and abortion are non issues used to distract stupid americans.
-
I said before, I'll say it again......
Gays were lucky, as they had an excuse for not getting married. It's too bad they won't ban "straight" marriages...... ;)
Marriages today are a fucking joke. Hell, maybe they always have been. I love how the idiots talk about the "sanctity" of marriage. Is there such a thing? :-\
I couldn't agree more. Would LOVE to have marriage banned so they couldn't hold that shit over my head anymore.
-
Seriously. While there are exceptions, marriages just don't work. The whole "expect to live your whole life with one person" is an outdated, silly concept.
-
haha so true.
Same idiots who are pro-life. ::) Gay marriage and abortion are non issues used to distract stupid americans.
Since when was killing a baby from the mothers womb and an asshole being an entrance a natural occurance?
-
Since when was killing a baby from the mothers womb and an asshole being an entrance a natural occurance?
youi dont think some caveman dude who didnt want to do extra hunting didnt punch a bitch in the stomach ??
and i can guarantee dudes been plowing ass since the dawn of time
-
youi dont think some caveman dude who didnt want to do extra hunting didnt punch a bitch in the stomach ??
and i can guarantee dudes been plowing ass since the dawn of time
Possibly........but it was never intended.
-
Possibly........but it was never intended.
You aren't the one who makes that decision.
Dudes putting from the ruff and getting married doesn't infringe upon your civil liberties, so why shouldn't they?
Go back to complaining about Rachel Ray's scarf, Joe. ;D
-
Possibly........but it was never intended.
never INTENDED ? ???
what do you mean "intended" ?
-
never INTENDED ? ???
what do you mean "intended" ?
A mans asshole is an exit not an entrance.............get it now??
-
A mans asshole is an exit not an entrance.............get it now??
What about a womans asshole? Is anal sex a sin in your opinion? Serious question.
-
You aren't the one who makes that decision.
Dudes putting from the ruff and getting married doesn't infringe upon your civil liberties, so why shouldn't they?Go back to complaining about Rachel Ray's scarf, Joe. ;D
Maybe not, but it does have a direct effect on how children might preceive society by thinking it's normal when it's not.
-
Seriously. While there are exceptions, marriages just don't work. The whole "expect to live your whole life with one person" is an outdated, silly concept.
And if you're Mormon, they want you to live *eternity* with that person.
I told my wife she'll be lucky to make the end of this decade with me. Eternity is completely out of the question!
-
A mans asshole is an exit not an entrance.............get it now??
You MUST get that prostate examined.
Hold on...are you saying that the annual prostate exam was created by gay activists and that it's not really necessary??
-
What about a womans asshole? Is anal sex a sin in your opinion? Serious question.
Is it sin? dunno have to look that one up, but it's not how God intended us to procreate.
-
You MUST get that prostate examined.
Hold on...are you saying that the annual prostate exam was created by gay activists and that it's not really necessary??
Don't think the Doctor is going to check my prostate with his penis to see if I'm good health.........do you?
-
Boy you have really put alot of thought into this haven't you "coach"?
-
Maybe not, but it does have a direct effect on how children might preceive society by thinking it's normal when it's not.
Perception of right and wrong starts at home, Joe. It shouldn't fall on the public and government to teach personal beliefs.
Also, a child's perception isn't important. We aren't going to see a sudden spike in homosexuals due to gay marriage, but we will see more people who'd have otherwise been in the closet. Most people do not suddenly choose that lifestyle, rather it's innate.
-
Marriages today are a fucking joke. Hell, maybe they always have been. I love how the idiots talk about the "sanctity" of marriage. Is there such a thing? :-\
Exactly. In most cultures, the divorce rate is sky high, as is adultery - there is hardly any "sanctity of marriage" but people run around screaming it all the time.
Don't think the Doctor is going to check my prostate with his penis to see if I'm good health.........do you?
Joe, please go easy on posting your fantasies on the G&O. Take that to the sex board >:(
-
Don't think the Doctor is going to check my prostate with his penis to see if I'm good health.........do you?
I don't know about that:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-me-doctor31-2008may31,0,605751.story
Ex-Northern California doctor accused in sex assaults of men
Tony Shiu was deported from Taiwan to face charges that include felony sodomy. He fled the United States in 2006, after photos of unconscious and semi-nude men were found in his home.
He was charged with felony sodomy, sexual penetration of an unconscious person, sexual assault during medical treatment and several misdemeanors related to the alleged assaults on the two men.
-
Exactly. In most cultures, the divorce rate is sky high, as is adultery - there is hardly any "sanctity of marriage" but people run around screaming it all the time.
Joe, please go easy on posting your fantasies on the G&O. Take that to the sex board >:(
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
-
I don't give a fuck what this country thinks. Me and the Queen are getting married in Thunder Bay. Bush, Barack, and Hillary can all kiss my ass as neither one of them are going to do a damn thing.
Yea I said Barack and Hillary, they are proposing "civil unions" which is a slap in my face. No difference than Bill Clinton saying that he smoked but never inhaled. At least Bush has the decency to say " Hell no, f#ck the f$gs"
I also hear all this stuff about preserving marriage and quite frankly, its a bunch of bullshit. Millions of marriages have ended in divorce and if they want to preserve marriage then they should be preaching against infidelity. Those sonmamabitches should have spoke up with that show "Who wants to marry a millionaire came out.
As far as 240's comment is concerned, most gay couples or any couple would go around making out in front of a bunch of little kids but in any event, when your kid grows up he'll either like pie or strudel regardless of what he sees or does.
Hell, for all you know he might just want to cook his own food..... ;D
-
Perception of right and wrong starts at home, Joe. It shouldn't fall on the public and government to teach personal beliefs.
Also, a child's perception isn't important. We aren't going to see a sudden spike in homosexuals due to gay marriage, but we will see more people who'd have otherwise been in the closet. Most people do not suddenly choose that lifestyle, rather it's innate.
Seems as though society is pushing more and more, take a look around and on TV. I've never seen this before and we have MTV blocked, but appearanly there's a show called "Tilo Tequila" who is this bi-sexual girl who chooses her dates with other men and women and it's seems she talks about her "dating" experiances with other boys and girls when she was 12 or 14 or something like that. What does that tell kids?
Or how about the Logos channel (which is also blocked)? Just last week we were watching some show (cant remember the name of it.....some Dr. show) and they were talking about having a threesome then at the end it showed two chick making out. This on at prime time on a network channel.
-
Is it sin? dunno have to look that one up, but it's not how God intended us to procreate.
Alright.
As a Christian what do you think about sex before marriage? Do you tell your son he might go to hell if he fornicates?
-
Seems as though society is pushing more and more, take a look around and on TV. I've never seen this before and we have MTV blocked, but appearanly there's a show called "Tilo Tequila" who is this bi-sexual girl who chooses her dates with other men and women and it's seems she talks about her "dating" experiances with other boys and girls when she was 12 or 14 or something like that. What does that tell kids?
Or how about the Logos channel (which is also blocked)? Just last week we were watching some show (cant remember the name of it.....some Dr. show) and they were talking about having a threesome then at the end it showed two chick making out. This on at prime time on a network channel.
They do that because that's what people wish to watch.
You are being a good parent by blocking that stuff out, so props to you! I have numerous young cousins all brought up here, and most of their parents would never let them watch Tila Tequila or whoever. Times are a chnaging and you gotta raise your youth accordingly.
-
Seems as though society is pushing more and more, take a look around and on TV. I've never seen this before and we have MTV blocked, but appearanly there's a show called "Tilo Tequila" who is this bi-sexual girl who chooses her dates with other men and women and it's seems she talks about her "dating" experiances with other boys and girls when she was 12 or 14 or something like that. What does that tell kids?
Or how about the Logos channel (which is also blocked)? Just last week we were watching some show (cant remember the name of it.....some Dr. show) and they were talking about having a threesome then at the end it showed two chick making out. This on at prime time on a network channel.
Your kids shouldn't be watching any adult shows but if they do, who's fault is that???? Parents need to take more responsibility for their children. Its not the job of TV networks to babysit.
Society is evolving, Coach, and it will continue to evolve. Either evolve or die...at least fulfill one part of Darwin's theory.
-
Alright.
As a Christian what do you think about sex before marriage? Do you tell your son he might go to hell if he fornicates?
1. I think it's wrong to have sex before marriage and yes, I have.
2. My son just turned 11 yesterday. We haven't had the "discussion" yet....LOL. One thing at a time, I'm still sad he's 11, I'm getting old :'(
-
1. I think it's wrong to have sex before marriage and yes, I have.
2. My son just turned 11 yesterday. We haven't had the "discussion" yet....LOL. One thing at a time, I'm still sad he's 11, I'm getting old :'(
Knowing today's kids, he probably already knows. ;)
-
1. I think it's wrong to have sex before marriage and yes, I have.
2. My son just turned 11 yesterday. We haven't had the "discussion" yet....LOL. One thing at a time, I'm still sad he's 11, I'm getting old :'(
ok
Knowing today's kids, he probably already knows. ;)
Yup. With the internet todays kids know all about double anal, ass to mouth, etc. :'( :D
-
Your kids shouldn't be watching any adult shows but if they do, who's fault is that???? Parents need to take more responsibility for their children. Its not the job of TV networks to babysit.
Society is evolving, Coach, and it will continue to evolve. Either evolve or die...at least fulfill one part of Darwin's theory.
I agree and it sucks that it's developing into what it is. My boy mostly watches either Nick, Disney, Fox sports or the golf channel, but even with Nick and Disney it's getting contraversial with Brittney Spears sister getting pregnant the affairs between those two teens that were sending naked pics to each other. I know we can't get away from it, it's all aound, just sucks.
-
I agree and it sucks that it's developing into what it is. My boy mostly watches either Nick, Disney, Fox sports or the golf channel, but even with Nick and Disney it's getting contraversial with Brittney Spears sister getting pregnant the affairs between those two teens that were sending naked pics to each other. I know we can't get away from it, it's all aound, just sucks.
Do like I did, get rid of cable. I have a lot more time for more things and it saves about 110.00 dollars a month.
Besides you can watch TV over the internet for free.
-
Same sex marrage = a good thing, it brings equal rights to gays.
Using an outdated religious doctrine as the backing for what's legal or not is backwards thinking. There is no logical reason strong enough to inhibit homosexuals from marrage in 2008. If people want to believe in some age old backwards thinking religious doctrine, fine, but if they want the irrational 2000 year old horseshit rules apply to other people hidden as a LAW? then go fuck themselves.
In Norway, fagg.ots are allowed to marry. "Thank god" for a secular society. The more secular, the better.
-
The thing I find so strange about the supposed "Christian" opposition to gay marriage is that no one who expounds the biblical interdiction against same sex marriage/intercourse has actually read Leviticus (the book of Jewish Law).
The passage which forbids gay marriage states that "no man shall lay with another man as he would with a woman" ...on pain of death (as per usual).
Firstly, that's a ban on male-male anal sex... we know Jewish peoples had sacred temple priestesses who only performed anal sex even after the adoption of Mosaic Law... so the sodomy of women seems to be fine with Yahweh.
Secondly, the same passage that supposedly bans homosexuality also bans the eating of shellfish... and also under penalty of death.
Thirdly, God clearly didn't write/inspire these particular passages as they also include a blanket death penalty for any man who accidentally kills another man... seeing as God is presumably the originator of all accidents he either:
-doesn't agree with these prohibitions (or wasn't consulted)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of killing people he doesn't approve of (while also having his subjects murder the innocent patsy of his choosing)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of framing people he doesn't approve of for the death penalty (while sacrificing an innocent pawn of his choosing)
Similarly, menstruating women must live outside the city walls... witches must be put to death... meat and dairy can't go on the same plate... etc etc etc
Now some Christians claim that the New Testament supersedes the brutality of the Old Testament and Torah... but these self same people also hate fags with a passion...
For the record, Jeebus never said anything about homos... (except a reference to "upholding the Law" which he himself regularly flouted)
But, most importantly of all.... Evangelical Christians (Ameranthropoides non-sapiens) conveniently neglect the possibility that Jesus himself was a queer...
He wasn't married (an unmarried Jewish over thirty man is also a "abomination" according to the Torah).
He hung around with 12 sailors.
He had a female friend he wasn't banging (Mary Magdelene).
He was devoted to his mother.
He threw a hissy fit when his Dad's house was messy (expelling the money traders from the temple)
He had a special disciple (John) described as "the young man whom Jesus loved"
When he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane he was meeting a young man dressed only in a linen shroud (this same young man simply slipped loose his garment and ran off stark naked when accosted by a Roman soldier).
One of the early Christian cults (I think they were called Capocrations) claimed to have a secret gospel of Mark which detailed the secret sodomy rituals preserved for the inner initiates... one of the early Church Fathers admitted the existence of such a secret gospel but denied the buggery part (but then again, he did deny the very existence of the secret gospel... until he didn't).
And besides all this... Jesus has no moral standing whatsoever, I can prove he was actually evil.
The Luke
-
He threw a hissy fit when his Dad's house was messy (expelling the money traders from the temple)
*instant classic*
Easily one of the best quotes ever. ;D
-
One of the early Christian cults (I think they were called Capocrations) claimed to have a secret gospel of Mark which detailed the secret sodomy rituals preserved for the inner initiates... one of the early Church Fathers admitted the existence of such a secret gospel but denied the buggery part (but then again, he did deny the very existence of the secret gospel... until he didn't).
The Luke
It's also possible that Secret Mark is a modern hoax...
-
As far as 240's comment is concerned, most gay couples or any couple would go around making out in front of a bunch of little kids but in any event, when your kid grows up he'll either like pie or strudel regardless of what he sees or does.
I agree the kid will do what he's programmed to do, how the good Lord built him. If he's happy, I'm happy.
And I'm sure only the crassest of couples would have a same-sex makeout session on a playground.
One Q... is it a sin to hit a girl in the tailpipe?
Yes, it's not intended for procreation. Don't give me that answer. Is it a sin to fck her mouth, Joe? It's not for procreation either!
-
The thing I find so strange about the supposed "Christian" opposition to gay marriage is that no one who expounds the biblical interdiction against same sex marriage/intercourse has actually read Leviticus (the book of Jewish Law).
The passage which forbids gay marriage states that "no man shall lay with another man as he would with a woman" ...on pain of death (as per usual).
Firstly, that's a ban on male-male anal sex... we know Jewish peoples had sacred temple priestesses who only performed anal sex even after the adoption of Mosaic Law... so the sodomy of women seems to be fine with Yahweh.
Secondly, the same passage that supposedly bans homosexuality also bans the eating of shellfish... and also under penalty of death.
Thirdly, God clearly didn't write/inspire these particular passages as they also include a blanket death penalty for any man who accidentally kills another man... seeing as God is presumably the originator of all accidents he either:
-doesn't agree with these prohibitions (or wasn't consulted)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of killing people he doesn't approve of (while also having his subjects murder the innocent patsy of his choosing)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of framing people he doesn't approve of for the death penalty (while sacrificing an innocent pawn of his choosing)
Similarly, menstruating women must live outside the city walls... witches must be put to death... meat and dairy can't go on the same plate... etc etc etc
Now some Christians claim that the New Testament supersedes the brutality of the Old Testament and Torah... but these self same people also hate fags with a passion...
For the record, Jeebus never said anything about homos... (except a reference to "upholding the Law" which he himself regularly flouted)
But, most importantly of all.... Evangelical Christians (Ameranthropoides non-sapiens) conveniently neglect the possibility that Jesus himself was a queer...
He wasn't married (an unmarried Jewish over thirty man is also a "abomination" according to the Torah).
He hung around with 12 sailors.
He had a female friend he wasn't banging (Mary Magdelene).
He was devoted to his mother.
He threw a hissy fit when his Dad's house was messy (expelling the money traders from the temple)
He had a special disciple (John) described as "the young man whom Jesus loved"
When he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane he was meeting a young man dressed only in a linen shroud (this same young man simply slipped loose his garment and ran off stark naked when accosted by a Roman soldier).
One of the early Christian cults (I think they were called Capocrations) claimed to have a secret gospel of Mark which detailed the secret sodomy rituals preserved for the inner initiates... one of the early Church Fathers admitted the existence of such a secret gospel but denied the buggery part (but then again, he did deny the very existence of the secret gospel... until he didn't).
And besides all this... Jesus has no moral standing whatsoever, I can prove he was actually evil.
The Luke
Please....do share.
Where were you during the "was Jeezus gay" thread?
-
marriage is between man and a woman,period. if husband and wife get divorced with kids there is allimony and child support paid to the woman. in a failed gay marriage who pays? the one who wore the strap on the most?
-
marriage is between man and a woman,period. if husband and wife get divorced with kids there is allimony and child support paid to the woman. in a failed gay marriage who pays? the one who wore the strap on the most?
Cool, and here I thought cave men were extinct.....
-
I think with 3 marriages to your name, you've abused the institution more than some gay couple. 8)
So Dr C are you saying "The Coach" is your typical male christian.....FUCKIN HYPOCRICTICAL ???
-
California’s citizens or California’s Supreme Court?
3 pages and no one replied to this...
The California legislature twice passed a same-sex marriage bill, twice it was vetoed by Schwarzenegger. His stated reason: "the courts should decide".
In 1948, the California Supreme Court also overturned miscegenation laws, making it legal for people of different races to marry. (it would take 20 years for the US Supreme Court to do the same). If there was talk radio back then, don't you think they'd be talking about 'activist judges' and overturning the will of the people? And if California had ballot propositions back then, don't you think groups (like I don't know, the KKK) would rush one onto the ballot to overturn that decision?
there is some talk about whether the ballot measure in November can even overturn the decision. the recent ruling states that same-sex couple must be treated the same as opposite-sex couples. the ballot measure as written says gays can't get married. passing the proposition wouldn't overturn the supreme court ruling. it could be interpreted to mean that since the state government can't give out same-sex marriage licenses, but they have to treat gays and straights equally, they may not be able to give out opposite sex licenses either.
-
Please....do share.
Where were you during the "was Jeezus gay" thread?
...I've always been very intrested in the propagation of theses viral meme complexes (religions), and through my studies I've stumbled across several of these recruitment heresies over the years.
For example, it's very easy to logically prove to a devout Christian that Satan created the world (the so-called Cathar or "Rex Mundi" heresy)... similarly you can prove logically to a devout Muslim that Islam itself is a construct of the devil... similarly arguments can be made that Jesus was actually the antichrist (the Mandean or Johannite heresy) etc etc (I won't go into these here).
These logical paradox heresies were used to recruit or "initiate" people into secretive sub cults (or parallel religions in the case of the Cathar/Bogomil heresy), sort of a parasitic vampirism between viral meme complexes.
Anyway, back to the point, proving Jesus was evil in five easy steps...
First, you set up your subject by asking the simple question: Is slavery wrong?
Evangelical: Yes.
Second, you compound their assertion: Is slavery ALWAYS morally wrong?
Evangelical: Yes, always.
Third: What about the subjugation and oppression of women? Is that also always morally wrong?
Evangelical: Yes, ...always morally wrong.
Fourth: So slavery and the oppression of women are both morally indefensible as a moral absolute?
Evangelical: Yes.
Fifth: Well then Jesus must have been evil... he grew up in a culture in which women were property, a culture which was part of an empire (Rome) which was founded on slavery, yet he never once spoke out publicly against either evil?
While the Evangelical stutters through their ensuing cognitive dissonance (these arguments usually trigger the dismissal defensive response)... I like to hammer home my point with a litany of Jesus moral failings:
By tacit consent Jesus likewise condoned:
-forcible genital mutilation (circumcision)
-arranged marriages
-child molestation (girls were married at 13 in Jewish culture, often to men 10 or more years older)
-animal cruelty (animal sacrifice by slow bleeding)
-infanticide (unwanted children were often left exposed to the elements to die)
-child dispossession (all across the Roman world newborns could be disowned if their fathers didn't accept them)
-torture (standard practice among the Romans)
-capital punishment
-child sacrifice (many, many religions partook of this abomination: including early Judaism)
-forcible castration (eunuchs)
...a first century Jew living in Israel would have been all too familiar with all of these things, yet Jesus never spoke out against any of these things. Obviously it takes a man of low moral character to fail to criticize such egregious moral outrages.
But in case you want specific proof, recall the instance when Jesus healed the child of the Roman centurion (think that's right).... Jesus didn't ask anything of the Roman. So even when it would have cost him nothing but the effort of making an utterance, he didn't take the opportunity to call on a Roman indebted to him to free his slaves.
As a professional freeloader (he didn't work for three years) Jesus undoubtedly accepted a free meal in the Roman centurions house... couldn't he cast a moments thought to the suffering of those who prepared his meal and served him?
He also spoke out against widows remarrying: that whole married forever in heaven bullshit.
Which, in first century Palestine would condemn a widowed women and her children to a life of destitute poverty (this is akin to Ghandi's failure to renounce the caste system). This is just unforgivable, not simply because of the fundamental inequality involved, but because at the time it amounted to saying that an oppressed victim of child molestation (arranged marriage, raped continuously from 13 onwards) had no right to seek a love-match marriage, therefore condemning these poor women to lives of loneliness and poverty.
Come on Evangelical Christians... admit it... Jesus was a right bastard.
The Luke
-
The Luke having some fun this morning. These are all fine pub arguments but try them on, say, someone with some background in Jesuit logic. Can you say grease stain? ;) :D
-
The Luke having some fun this morning. These are all fine pub arguments but try them on, say, someone with some background in Jesuit logic. Can you say grease stain? ;) :D
...I counter well educated believers with the plagiarism argument against the historicity of Jeebus... or illustrate the astrological metaphor for them. Usually pretty upsetting for the true believer, but then again... unthinking sheeple shouldn't be so intolerant of smarter people either.
It's funny when a fervent believer realizes that the atheist they are arguing with understands more about their religion than they do.
The Luke
-
It's also possible that Secret Mark is a modern hoax...
But didn't Irenaeus; Eusebius or one of those other early church father bastards write to some bishop explaining the existence of the secret Mark gospel??
Seeing as Christianity is an unenlightened/non-illuminated version of the pagan solar deity mystery religion, I would assume there to be a parallel initiatory tradition (as there was amongst all solar deity mystery religions).
A long history of intra-Christian subterfuge and intrigue would seem to evidence this assumption, see:
-the Cathars/Bogomils and their "Rex Mundi" heresy
-the Irish Church and its Aryan heresy
-the secretive AA (often assumed to mean the Association d'Angels)
-the Jesuits (higher order Jesuits are selected based on IQ, not service)
-the secret Vatican library
-the Mandeans (or Swamp Kurds)
-the Johannite heresy
-the Knights Templar (and their suppression)
-the Saint Malachy prophecies
-the Nag Hammadi Library (and the mysterious "Organisation" who preserved them)
-the Freemasonic tradition
-the P2 Masonic Lodge within the Vatican itself
-the viral "Priory of Sion" mythos (and their mysterious founders "The Ormus")
...suspicious, suspicious.
Seeing as the Christianity viral meme complex is itself subject to its own parasitic meme sub-complexes, we should expect there to be such traditions just as old as Christianity itself... for an example pertinent to the discussion at hand, we could assume that among the earliest Christians there would have been a small group of Gay Christians who would have created a homosexual sub-group within the movement (this may be what lead to the Cappocratian(?) heresy), then it's only one creative writer away from a secret gay gospel.
The Luke
-
...I counter well educated believers with the plagiarism argument against the historicity of Jeebus... or illustrate the astrological metaphor for them. Usually pretty upsetting for the true believer, but then again... unthinking sheeple shouldn't be so intolerant of smarter people either.
It's funny when a fervent believer realizes that the atheist they are arguing with understands more about their religion than they do.
The Luke
Ha! Good point. Christopher Hitchens has done just that in the last year while pushing his latest book, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I'm sure you can find some transcripts or podcasts without much trouble: he has made some people with very impressive theological backgrounds look like school children. Almost painful in the way he lances their defences and eviscerates their arguments. :-\ :D
-
The thing I find so strange about the supposed "Christian" opposition to gay marriage is that no one who expounds the biblical interdiction against same sex marriage/intercourse has actually read Leviticus (the book of Jewish Law).
The passage which forbids gay marriage states that "no man shall lay with another man as he would with a woman" ...on pain of death (as per usual).
Firstly, that's a ban on male-male anal sex... we know Jewish peoples had sacred temple priestesses who only performed anal sex even after the adoption of Mosaic Law... so the sodomy of women seems to be fine with Yahweh.
Secondly, the same passage that supposedly bans homosexuality also bans the eating of shellfish... and also under penalty of death.
Thirdly, God clearly didn't write/inspire these particular passages as they also include a blanket death penalty for any man who accidentally kills another man... seeing as God is presumably the originator of all accidents he either:
-doesn't agree with these prohibitions (or wasn't consulted)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of killing people he doesn't approve of (while also having his subjects murder the innocent patsy of his choosing)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of framing people he doesn't approve of for the death penalty (while sacrificing an innocent pawn of his choosing)
Similarly, menstruating women must live outside the city walls... witches must be put to death... meat and dairy can't go on the same plate... etc etc etc
Now some Christians claim that the New Testament supersedes the brutality of the Old Testament and Torah... but these self same people also hate fags with a passion...
For the record, Jeebus never said anything about homos... (except a reference to "upholding the Law" which he himself regularly flouted)
But, most importantly of all.... Evangelical Christians (Ameranthropoides non-sapiens) conveniently neglect the possibility that Jesus himself was a queer...
He wasn't married (an unmarried Jewish over thirty man is also a "abomination" according to the Torah).
He hung around with 12 sailors.
He had a female friend he wasn't banging (Mary Magdelene).
He was devoted to his mother.
He threw a hissy fit when his Dad's house was messy (expelling the money traders from the temple)
He had a special disciple (John) described as "the young man whom Jesus loved"
When he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane he was meeting a young man dressed only in a linen shroud (this same young man simply slipped loose his garment and ran off stark naked when accosted by a Roman soldier).
One of the early Christian cults (I think they were called Capocrations) claimed to have a secret gospel of Mark which detailed the secret sodomy rituals preserved for the inner initiates... one of the early Church Fathers admitted the existence of such a secret gospel but denied the buggery part (but then again, he did deny the very existence of the secret gospel... until he didn't).
And besides all this... Jesus has no moral standing whatsoever, I can prove he was actually evil.
The Luke
Interesting post.
-
3 pages and no one replied to this...
The California legislature twice passed a same-sex marriage bill, twice it was vetoed by Schwarzenegger. His stated reason: "the courts should decide".
I'm aware of that, Tim.
In 1948, the California Supreme Court also overturned miscegenation laws, making it legal for people of different races to marry. (it would take 20 years for the US Supreme Court to do the same). If there was talk radio back then, don't you think they'd be talking about 'activist judges' and overturning the will of the people? And if California had ballot propositions back then, don't you think groups (like I don't know, the KKK) would rush one onto the ballot to overturn that decision?
As I said about that particular Supreme Court verdict, the issue was white marrying non-whites, NOT interracial marriage in general. That was one of the points the Supreme Court acknowledged. In Virginia, different non-white races could intermarry with no punitive action taken.
there is some talk about whether the ballot measure in November can even overturn the decision. the recent ruling states that same-sex couple must be treated the same as opposite-sex couples. the ballot measure as written says gays can't get married. passing the proposition wouldn't overturn the supreme court ruling. it could be interpreted to mean that since the state government can't give out same-sex marriage licenses, but they have to treat gays and straights equally, they may not be able to give out opposite sex licenses either.
I'm aware of Schwarzenegger's vetoes, Tim.
The constitutional amendment, if passed, would overturn the state Supreme Court's decision. That's the point. And, should it happen, it would be the first time. The state courts of Alaska and Hawaii did the same thing, ruling that their laws that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman (1M-1W) were unconstitutional.
But, those rulings were short-lived, because the citizens in both states easily passed constitutional amendments that clearly defined marriage as a 1M-1W union.
-
The biggest issue here is birth certificate infallibility...
Here's how to institute gay marriage in any conservative state (again in a few easy steps):
A gay couple (Bob & Randy) applies for a marriage license... they are denied.
They sue the state on the grounds that Randy is actually female and their union is not subject to the Bush Administrations infantile amendment to the constitution.
They lose the case on the grounds that Randy's birth certificate classes him as a male (birth certificates are fallible; my maternal grandfather was 165 years old when he died, a direct result of clerical error in his birthdate: 1820 not 1920). So they appeal to the Supreme Court... and this is where they have the legal system by the balls.
THERE IS NO MEDICAL CONSENSUS ON WHAT DIAGNOSTIC PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE SEXES.
The Supreme Court, swayed by NeoCon appointees then has only one option... to define the sexes in medical terms itself (birth certificate classifications an be overturned: see the test cases involving intersex people, hermaphrodites and androgen insensitive males [classed female]).
This would then incur the laughable scenario of all engaged couples being subject to the same test that excludes male-male and female-female marriage.
THIS IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
NO AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE MADE SUBJECT TO MEDICAL DISCRIMINATION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF GENDER BY ANY STATE OR FEDERAL STIPULATION.
If the gay lobby concentrated their efforts on an anti-discrimination agenda in concert with the efforts of intersex and hermaphodite pressure groups they could easily force the state into the position of mandating a "Cruciamentum" for all prospective marriage license applicants.
Yes Mr-Jeebus-Loving-Hill-Billy-Red-Neck-Republican-Voting-Moron, you can have a ban on gay marriage just like Jeebus wanted... but it means you and Mrs-Jeebus-Loving-Hill-Billy-Red-Neck-Republican-Voting-Moron will have to take a few tests before you two can get your marriage ratified also.
So, could you and your fiance please report to your local county hospital for the usual Hope-you're-not-related blood test and some new tests:
-DNA sex chromosome test
-full hormone profile
-androgen receptor gene test
-two complete physical genital inspections (2nd opinion required)
-ultrasound of your abdomen (to make sure she has ovaries and he doesn't)
-full body DEXA scan to check the extent and gerndrification of your physical structure)
-full MRI scan of the sex-specific brain structures
-extensive PET scan (Positron Emission Topography) in conjunction with real-time image association testing to quantify sexual preference
Even after all this you might have the scenario wherein a male/female marriage is ratified on the grounds that the man is 51% male:49% female and the women is 49% male:51% female despite the fact that there would be a significantly higher gender difference between the average gay couple...
Can you imagine the befuddlement when all these Evangelical hate-mongers are told by a scientist exactly what percentage male and female they are (average bloke is only 70% male, average girl is only 70% female: it's a double lobed Bell curve distribution)... exactly what their genetic sexual preference is (that should pan out to 50% hetero; 40% bi; 10% gay for males and 50% hetero; 35% bi; 5% gay for females)... and while we're at it we might as well tell the homophobes exactly how many gay genes they are carrying (in case they want to have kids).
Might be a good idea to also tell 14-17% of them that their biological father is not who they think their biological father is (go have a talk with Mom), and maybe tell the racists exactly what percentage black they are... (very few full-blooded whites in the US).
You simply can't discriminate without a scientific basis for it. The science is against gay/hetero discrimination... just too many shades of pink.
The Luke
-
The biggest issue here is birth certificate infallibility...
Here's how to institute gay marriage in any conservative state (again in a few easy steps):
A gay couple (Bob & Randy) applies for a marriage license... they are denied.
They sue the state on the grounds that Randy is actually female and their union is not subject to the Bush Administrations infantile amendment to the constitution.
They lose the case on the grounds that Randy's birth certificate classes him as a male (birth certificates are fallible; my maternal grandfather was 165 years old when he died, a direct result of clerical error in his birthdate: 1820 not 1920). So they appeal to the Supreme Court... and this is where they have the legal system by the balls.
THERE IS NO MEDICAL CONSENSUS ON WHAT DIAGNOSTIC PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE SEXES.
The Supreme Court, swayed by NeoCon appointees then has only one option... to define the sexes in medical terms itself (birth certificate classifications an be overturned: see the test cases involving intersex people, hermaphrodites and androgen insensitive males [classed female]).
This would then incur the laughable scenario of all engaged couples being subject to the same test that excludes male-male and female-female marriage.
THIS IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
NO AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE MADE SUBJECT TO MEDICAL DISCRIMINATION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF GENDER BY ANY STATE OR FEDERAL STIPULATION.
If the gay lobby concentrated their efforts on an anti-discrimination agenda in concert with the efforts of intersex and hermaphodite pressure groups they could easily force the state into the position of mandating a "Cruciamentum" for all prospective marriage license applicants.
Yes Mr-Jeebus-Loving-Hill-Billy-Red-Neck-Republican-Voting-Moron, you can have a ban on gay marriage just like Jeebus wanted... but it means you and Mrs-Jeebus-Loving-Hill-Billy-Red-Neck-Republican-Voting-Moron will have to take a few tests before you two can get your marriage ratified also.
So, could you and your fiance please report to your local county hospital for the usual Hope-you're-not-related blood test and some new tests:
-DNA sex chromosome test
-full hormone profile
-androgen receptor gene test
-two complete physical genital inspections (2nd opinion required)
-ultrasound of your abdomen (to make sure she has ovaries and he doesn't)
-full body DEXA scan to check the extent and gerndrification of your physical structure)
-full MRI scan of the sex-specific brain structures
-extensive PET scan (Positron Emission Topography) in conjunction with real-time image association testing to quantify sexual preference
Even after all this you might have the scenario wherein a male/female marriage is ratified on the grounds that the man is 51% male:49% female and the women is 49% male:51% female despite the fact that there would be a significantly higher gender difference between the average gay couple...
Can you imagine the befuddlement when all these Evangelical hate-mongers are told by a scientist exactly what percentage male and female they are (average bloke is only 70% male, average girl is only 70% female: it's a double lobed Bell curve distribution)... exactly what their genetic sexual preference is (that should pan out to 50% hetero; 40% bi; 10% gay for males and 50% hetero; 35% bi; 5% gay for females)... and while we're at it we might as well tell the homophobes exactly how many gay genes they are carrying (in case they want to have kids).
Might be a good idea to also tell 14-17% of them that their biological father is not who they think their biological father is (go have a talk with Mom), and maybe tell the racists exactly what percentage black they are... (very few full-blooded whites in the US).
You simply can't discriminate without a scientific basis for it. The science is against gay/hetero discrimination... just too many shades of pink.
The Luke
Ummm.....before you go on another pointless tirade, perhaps you should remember that the "blue" states don't have these "Jeebus-loving-hibilly-rednecks". Yet, they passed the constitutional amendments that their citizens put on their ballots.
That would be states such as like Hawaii, Michigan, Wisconsin, and, Oregon
Or, did you forget about the fact that Missouri passed its constitutional amendment 71-29, despite 60% of the voters being democrats.
BTW, what will the excuse be if the biggest blue state of them all passes a constitutional amendment, defining marriage as a 1M-1W union?
-
There are no human societies throughout history and throughout the world that have recognized same-sex marriage, except, of course, in the last 3 or 4 years or so.
I don't think we should throw away or destroy the most basic human institution so arbitrarily.
-
There are no human societies throughout history and throughout the world that have recognized same-sex marriage, except, of course, in the last 3 or 4 years or so.
I don't think we should throw away or destroy the most basic human institution so arbitrarily.
...eh, Ireland had it for a couple of thousand years.
We have a 500 year old memorial commemorating St Patrick consecrating a gay marriage.
Societies that did recognise gay marriage:
-Rome (ie: Europe from 500 BC to 400 AD)
-Greece
-Celtic Europe
-Ireland
-Sparta (enforced homosexuality)
-China
-Mongolia
...if you include medieval gay clubs (priories, convents, monasteries, clerical orders and priesthoods) wherein people were bound to the order and property rights were shared something akin to a marriage then I think that list would stretch to include all societies in human histories. (except perhaps the Vikings)
The militant ignorance on this site is palpable.
Heywood is obviously a moron and MCWAY fails to comprehend any argument put to him (I was inferring that the courts present an inevitable success for gay marriage, it has nothing to do with political maneuverings).
The Luke
-
There are no human societies throughout history and throughout the world that have recognized same-sex marriage, except, of course, in the last 3 or 4 years or so.
That is because humans are finally growing up.
-
That is because humans are finally growing up.
Word.
It's amazing the arguements these morons put up against gay marriage. None are valid, none show why it would be bad for society as a whole to deny these civil liberties to certain people who're different.
-
Though this is completely off-topic (and now, that I'm finished LAUGHING), I'd like to address some of these claims here.
The thing I find so strange about the supposed "Christian" opposition to gay marriage is that no one who expounds the biblical interdiction against same sex marriage/intercourse has actually read Leviticus (the book of Jewish Law).
The passage which forbids gay marriage states that "no man shall lay with another man as he would with a woman" ...on pain of death (as per usual).
Firstly, that's a ban on male-male anal sex... we know Jewish peoples had sacred temple priestesses who only performed anal sex even after the adoption of Mosaic Law... so the sodomy of women seems to be fine with Yahweh.
Secondly, the same passage that supposedly bans homosexuality also bans the eating of shellfish... and also under penalty of death.
WHAT!!!! Please get your facts straight. Shellfish were part of the "unclean foods" list. Anyone who ate those simply got deemed "unclean" and quarantined from the camp for 24 hours.
And unlike what's presented in this post of your (among others), I will cite the references to back my statements.
Lev. 11:24, And for these ye shall be unclean; whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until even. That don't sound like the death penalty to me.
Thirdly, God clearly didn't write/inspire these particular passages as they also include a blanket death penalty for any man who accidentally kills another man... seeing as God is presumably the originator of all accidents he either:
-doesn't agree with these prohibitions (or wasn't consulted)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of killing people he doesn't approve of (while also having his subjects murder the innocent patsy of his choosing)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of framing people he doesn't approve of for the death penalty (while sacrificing an innocent pawn of his choosing)
Similarly, menstruating women must live outside the city walls... witches must be put to death... meat and dairy can't go on the same plate... etc etc etc
Now some Christians claim that the New Testament supersedes the brutality of the Old Testament and Torah... but these self same people also hate fags with a passion...
For the record, Jeebus never said anything about homos... (except a reference to "upholding the Law" which he himself regularly flouted)
What Jesus DID say, when questions about matters of marriage and sex was, "For this reason, shall a man leave to his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE. And the two shall become one flesh". The message was clear, when it comes to sexual behavior, any kind outside of marriage (defined as a one man, one woman union) was sinful, which INCLUDES HOMOSEXUALITY.
But, most importantly of all.... Evangelical Christians (Ameranthropoides non-sapiens) conveniently neglect the possibility that Jesus himself was a queer...
<<pause for hysterical laughter>>
Jesus' antagonists were looking for reasons to have Him put to death, as He kept embarrasing them. If Jesus were gay, the Pharisees could have put him to death, based on that alone.
He wasn't married (an unmarried Jewish over thirty man is also a "abomination" according to the Torah).
Jesus made it clear, that He had no intention to set up any earthly kingdom or legacy. Hence, there's no need for a wife or children.
He hung around with 12 sailors.
Come again. Matthew was a tax-collector; John grew up in an influential home among priests. Andrew and Peter were fishermen. Again, please get your facts, straight, before posting such mess.
He had a female friend he wasn't banging (Mary Magdelene).
Again, no earthly kingdom, no intent to leave an earthly descendant; hence no marriage, wife, or kids.
He was devoted to his mother.
DUH!!!! His earthly father (Joseph) was dead. The firstborn son (unmarried) always took care of his mother and the younger unmarried siblings.
He threw a hissy fit when his Dad's house was messy (expelling the money traders from the temple)
He had a special disciple (John) described as "the young man whom Jesus loved"
And that makes Jesus gay how (this may come as a shock to you, but you can love another guy without being gay, unless you have no male friends, whatsoever)?
When he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane he was meeting a young man dressed only in a linen shroud (this same young man simply slipped loose his garment and ran off stark naked when accosted by a Roman soldier).
One of the early Christian cults (I think they were called Capocrations) claimed to have a secret gospel of Mark which detailed the secret sodomy rituals preserved for the inner initiates... one of the early Church Fathers admitted the existence of such a secret gospel but denied the buggery part (but then again, he did deny the very existence of the secret gospel... until he didn't).
And this "secret Gospel" has been sliced, diced, and julien-ed more times than the law allows. Why is it that an allgedly gay Jesus is never charged with sodomy, especially with a bunch of people looking for excuses to kill Him?
And besides all this... Jesus has no moral standing whatsoever, I can prove he was actually evil.
The Luke
Go for it (but on another thread. Let's see how many blunders come up, as a result).
-
Word.
It's amazing the arguements these morons put up against gay marriage. None are valid, none show why it would be bad for society as a whole to deny these civil liberties to certain people who're different.
So, why is it good for society as a whole? And if it is, why aren't gay "marriage" supporters, beating the streets to get signatures and petitions for state constitutional amendments, redefining marriage to accomodate homosexuals?
-
...eh, Ireland had it for a couple of thousand years.
We have a 500 year old memorial commemorating St Patrick consecrating a gay marriage.
Societies that did recognise gay marriage:
-Rome (ie: Europe from 500 BC to 400 AD)
-Greece
-Celtic Europe
-Ireland
-Sparta (enforced homosexuality)
-China
-Mongolia
...if you include medieval gay clubs (priories, convents, monasteries, clerical orders and priesthoods) wherein people were bound to the order and property rights were shared something akin to a marriage then I think that list would stretch to include all societies in human histories. (except perhaps the Vikings)
The militant ignorance on this site is palpable.
Heywood is obviously a moron and MCWAY fails to comprehend any argument put to him (I was inferring that the courts present an inevitable success for gay marriage, it has nothing to do with political maneuverings).
The Luke
I think you are completely full of bull, and your "degree" in sociology needs to be examined.
-
So, why is it good for society as a whole?
Because it is a testament to tolerance, and to "moving away" from ancient irrational values, and because homosexuals are no longer discriminated by the law which = supposed to be secular and objective.
Allowing gay marrage is good for the homosexuals, and it really does not hurt anyone directly. The only thing it does is to create friction while certain people has to free themselves from backwards thinking which is holding society back anyway. Thus, allowing gay marrage means that the faggits gets MORE pleasure while society as a whole eventually benefits from the tolerance improvement this causes while becoming more free from "backwards thinking/irrationality". Thus, not only does the faggits benefit from it, but most other people eventually becomes free from their own delusional values that only serves to hurt other people while serving NO GOOD.
In other words: Everybody benefits from it, and nothing is lost because the reasons for DENYING gay marrage has no value for a society, it actually damages it. Believing that allowing only heterosexual marrage is some kind of "positive cultural shit that has value in itself" is a moronic belief. It is the same as thinking that circumsition (mutilation) of women at birth has some value because some dumb african community thinks it has some value. The result is that many girls are fucked up for life just because of a ritual that does not do anything. That african society would be better of if they never had the thing in the first place. Same shit applies to the current denial of gay marrage. Let the faggits marry as they want, nobody has the right to deny them to do so, because that is trying to inhibit other peoples freedom to do something that hurts nobody else via the law just to uphold some outdated moronic ritual.
-
I couldn't care less if the fags want to get married. It doesn't affect me, and it is a stupid thing to be concerned about. Although, I seriously gotta wonder about the people who get all up in arms about this. :-\
-
I couldn't care less if the fags want to get married. It doesn't affect me, and it is a stupid thing to be concerned about. Although, I seriously gotta wonder about the people who get all up in arms about this. :-\
It = because they are backwards thinking morons. The same people gets all winded up about the muslim treatment of women, but they go all gaga when somebody tries to inhibit them from practicing the exact same way of thinking and acting towards the gays as the muslims do with their backwardness. In both instances, it is just trying to uphold some irrational cultural heritage through discriminating against somebody else that should have the same rights as everybody else.
-
I couldn't care less if the fags want to get married. It doesn't affect me, and it is a stupid thing to be concerned about. Although, I seriously gotta wonder about the people who get all up in arms about this. :-\
I love the people who are twice/thrice divorced (not to mention cheating) lecturing us on the sanctity of marriage. :D
Btw, who would have guessed that the topic of gay marriage, on a bodybuilding board like getbig, would generate 13 pages worth of interest (4 pages here and 9 pages on the Political board).
-
Well, MCWAY, you fell for it...
I was hoping you'd notice those errors (actually not errors but exact exaggerations)... I wanted to quote your counter arguments (which you learn by heart and seemingly don't understand) in order to better demonstrate for everyone else on the board why your uninformed opinion is the result of biased arguing.
I misquoted Leviticus because now that you have insisted on direct quotations anyone else who is as bored of your stupidity as I am can go through Leviticus and point out all the absurdities therein and you can attempt to defend them. Especially the Lord's decrees with regard to who makes a suitable slave and under which circumstances slave girls can be raped.
I'll rest my argument on the intelligence of my fellow atheists... they got the humour when I referred to the disciples as sailors (done for the effect of emphasizing Jesus' "Village People" kitsch factor).
What I'd really enjoy would be your counter to my (facetious) proof that Jesus was actually EVIL.
Read back, you'll find it... it's epically funny because there is no counter argument.
Good luck.
The Luke
-
Well, MCWAY, you fell for it...
I was hoping you'd notice those errors (actually not errors but exact exaggerations)... I wanted to quote your counter arguments (which you learn by heart and seemingly don't understand) in order to better demonstrate for everyone else on the board why your uninformed opinion is the result of biased arguing.
I misquoted Leviticus because now that you have insisted on direct quotations anyone else who is as bored of your stupidity as I am can go through Leviticus and point out all the absurdities therein and you can attempt to defend them. Especially the Lord's decrees with regard to who makes a suitable slave and under which circumstances slave girls can be raped.
You have a wacky habit of making claims, without citing specific references. And, now I'm to believe that you intentionally stated that eating shellfish was a capital offense, for the sole purpose of trapping me.....RIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!
As is all too often the case, another atheist decides to start flapping his mouth, making wild claims and hurling insults. But, when you get the heart of the matter, you have no substance to back your statements
I'll rest my argument on the intelligence of my fellow atheists... they got the humour when I referred to the disciples as sailors (done for the effect of emphasizing Jesus' "Village People" kitsch factor).
What I'd really enjoy would be your counter to my (facetious) proof that Jesus was actually EVIL.
Read back, you'll find it... it's epically funny because there is no counter argument.
Good luck.
The Luke
As I said, if you want to continue this silliness, do it elsewhere. I'd prefer, at this point, to stick to the topic at hand.
-
Can you imagine the befuddlement when all these Evangelical hate-mongers are told by a scientist exactly what percentage male and female they are
'cept the Evangelicals you talk about don't believe in science, or believe that science is a tool of the devil
-
Because it is a testament to tolerance, and to "moving away" from ancient irrational values, and because homosexuals are no longer discriminated by the law which = supposed to be secular and objective.
And who made the declaration these values are irrational? Besides, if law is secular and objective, that means that gay "marriage" is neither good nor bad. It's merely a preference. Therefore, if the people decide they want it to be legal, that's fine; if they decide that they don't want it to be legal, that's fine as well.
Allowing gay marrage is good for the homosexuals, and it really does not hurt anyone directly. The only thing it does is to create friction while certain people has to free themselves from backwards thinking which is holding society back anyway. Thus, allowing gay marrage means that the faggits gets MORE pleasure while society as a whole eventually benefits from the tolerance improvement this causes while becoming more free from "backwards thinking/irrationality". Thus, not only does the faggits benefit from it, but most other people eventually becomes free from their own delusional values that only serves to hurt other people while serving NO GOOD.
Holding society back from what?
This same "backwards thinking" says that it's wrong to steal, cheat, lie, dishonor your parents, and commit adultery. If you are (or were to get) married and your wife was cheating on you, I highly doubt you would see it as her being free from "backwards thinking"?
In other words: Everybody benefits from it, and nothing is lost because the reasons for DENYING gay marrage has no value for a society, it actually damages it. Believing that allowing only heterosexual marrage is some kind of "positive cultural shit that has value in itself" is a moronic belief. It is the same as thinking that circumsition (mutilation) of women at birth has some value because some dumb african community thinks it has some value. The result is that many girls are fucked up for life just because of a ritual that does not do anything. That african society would be better of if they never had the thing in the first place. Same shit applies to the current denial of gay marrage. Let the faggits marry as they want, nobody has the right to deny them to do so, because that is trying to inhibit other peoples freedom to do something that hurts nobody else via the law just to uphold some outdated moronic ritual.
The members of the society determine what does and doesn't have value. And, as I've said earlier, if gay "marriage" is so valuable, there ain't nothing stopping YOU or anyone else who supports gay "marriage" to start a petiton to get constitutional amendments put on their states' ballot.
If you expect your kids to obey and respect you, then you are upholding this "outdated moronic ritual". If you expect your wife to be faithful to you, you uphold this "outdated moronic ritual". If you expect people not to take your things without your permission........you get the point.
-
'cept the Evangelicals you talk about don't believe in science, or believe that science is a tool of the devil
America would be a far better place if we did a holocaust number on all the evangelicals. We'll call it "evolution at work".
-
I'm sorry...
I made a mistake. You see I read this:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
...and then I read further and found this...
"If a man lie with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
...and came to the conclusion that the punishment for an abomination was death. Especially seeing as death was the proscribed punishment for even lesser crimes... such as disrespect:
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
I (seemingly) wrongly assumed death would be the punishment for ALL other abominations listed in Leviticus:
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
...don't eat shellfish.
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
...really, don't eat shellfish.
"And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard." (Leviticus 11:13)
...don't eat certain birds either.
"All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:20)
...don't eat insects either (unless you're John the Baptist and eat mostly locusts).
"Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth, these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination." (Leviticus 11:42)
...presumably locusts somehow don't count in this group.
Seeing as I was so wrong on this obvious distinct legal term abomination which merits capital punishment in one verse but seemingly has another distinct and contradictory meaning later in the same chapter (a distinction that eludes me).
I'm sure MCWAY can similarly explain all the faults in my argument that Jesus was essentially evil because he never once spoke out against slavery and female oppression (see my previous more detailed post for the full argument).
Let's give him a chance to read back and decide which combination of equivocation, evasion and selective reasoning qualifies as the Christian viewpoint on this topic.
The Luke
-
America would be a far better place if we did a holocaust number on all the evangelicals. We'll call it "evolution at work".
Considering that you'd be grossly outnumbered (and outgunned, being as the evangelicals are supposedly a bunch of rifle-toting rednecks), you might want to reconsider that idea.
-
Considering that you'd be grossly outnumbered (and outgunned, being as the evangelicals are supposedly a bunch of rifle-toting rednecks), you might want to reconsider that idea.
At most, you're a third of the population, and the other 2/3 hates your guts. (And don't worry about the gun thing, I have plenty. ;))
-
I couldn't care less if the fags want to get married. It doesn't affect me, and it is a stupid thing to be concerned about. Although, I seriously gotta wonder about the people who get all up in arms about this. :-\
haha
look at goatboy tryijg to deny his tendencies
-
haha
look at goatboy tryijg to deny his tendencies
haha
look at slippy trying to pretend he's sober.
-
Goatboy... DeBussey etc...
You're doing sterling work here, but let's give MCWAY a chance to answer my challenge... which obviously he is taking every effort to avoid.
The Luke
-
I'm sorry...
I made a mistake. You see I read this:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
...and then I read further and found this...
"If a man lie with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
...and came to the conclusion that the punishment for an abomination was death. Especially seeing as death was the proscribed punishment for even lesser crimes... such as disrespect:
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
I (seemingly) wrongly assumed death would be the punishment for ALL other abominations listed in Leviticus:
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
...don't eat shellfish.
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
...really, don't eat shellfish.
"And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard." (Leviticus 11:13)
...don't eat certain birds either.
"All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:20)
...don't eat insects either (unless you're John the Baptist and eat mostly locusts).
"Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth, these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination." (Leviticus 11:42)
...presumably locusts somehow don't count in this group.
Seeing as I was so wrong on this obvious distinct legal term abomination which merits capital punishment in one verse but seemingly has another distinct and contradictory meaning later in the same chapter (a distinction that eludes me).
I'm sure MCWAY can similarly explain all the faults in my argument that Jesus was essentially evil because he never once spoke out against slavery and female oppression (see my previous more detailed post for the full argument).
Let's give him a chance to read back and decide which combination of equivocation, evasion and selective reasoning qualifies as the Christian viewpoint on this topic.
The Luke
Again, this is off-topic. If you're so eager for me to pick this silliness apart, make another thread.
-
Goatboy... DeBussey etc...
You're doing sterling work here, but let's give MCWAY a chance to answer my challenge... which obviously he is taking every effort to avoid.
The Luke
The avoiding stuff would fall on you, as you have yet to address the issue about the "blue" states that passed constitutional amendments, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus flattening your rants about this issue being merely about "Jeebus-loving" rednecks.
And, as stated before, if you're so eager for me to carve up that other non-topic-related silliness, start another thread.
-
it doesnt affect me either way. im not gay, i dont live in california, and more importantly....i dont really care what people want to have sex with and marry...
unless its a kid, an animal....or my anus. then we have problems....
HAHAHAHAH I'm not gonna bother reading the rest of this thread. That post was brilliant. ;D
-
Let's give him a chance to read back and decide which combination of equivocation, evasion and selective reasoning qualifies as the Christian viewpoint on this topic.
...so which one of these are you using here? Equivocation, evasion or selective reasoning... or is this a combination of all three?
Why isn't the fact that the Bible support for a ban on gay marriage/intercourse is bullshit relevant here... in this thread, especially when it is the (sole) basis of your counter argument?
Whys should Jesus or his morality be relevant to modern society?
Jesus never spoke out against some of the most egregious and blatant evils of his own time... slavery, female oppression, genital mutilation, arranged marriages, child rape etc etc
Couldn't the argument be made that by todays standards Jesus was quite a bigoted hateful bastard... perhaps his veiled moral musings regarding gay marriage aren't worth consideration?
The Luke
-
...so which one of these are you using here? Equivocation, evasion or selective reasoning... or is this a combination of all three?
Why isn't the fact that the Bible support for a ban on gay marriage/intercourse is bullshit relevant here... in this thread, especially when it is the (sole) basis of your counter argument?
Whys should Jesus or his morality be relevant to modern society?
Jesus never spoke out against some of the most egregious and blatant evils of his own time... slavery, female oppression, genital mutilation, arranged marriages, child rape etc etc
Couldn't the argument be made that by todays standards Jesus was quite a bigoted hateful bastard... perhaps his veiled moral musings regarding gay marriage aren't worth consideration?
The Luke
What part of "Start another thread" (for this non-topic stuff) ain't penetrating that skulls of yours?
And for that matter, why aren't you addressing that your "Jeebus-loving" redneck spiel don't hold, concerning the "blue" states that passed constitutional amendments?
-
What part of "Start another thread" (for this non-topic stuff) ain't penetrating that skulls of yours?
And for that matter, why aren't you addressing that your "Jeebus-loving" redneck spiel don't hold, concerning the "blue" states that passed constitutional amendments?
...Blue States vote against gay marriage because even liberals are afraid of Red-Neck Evangelicals.
You guys LOVE Jeebus, and profess to love your neighbours while simultaneously hating
-Jews
-blacks
-liberals
-socialists
-gays
-muslims
-non-Christians
-gays
-lesbians
-intellectuals
-thinker
-readers
...you book-burning parasites are so sure that you are right that you can never ever admit your mistakes.
A good example is the fact that you avoid every argument that you cannot counter or dismiss... just as you are doing in this thread.
The Luke
-
You guys LOVE Jeebus, and profess to love your neighbours while simultaneously hating
-Jews
-blacks
-liberals
-socialists
-gays
-muslims
-non-Christians
-gays
-lesbians
-intellectuals
-thinker
-readers
I hate socialists and muslims too, and I'm not a Jebus freak.
-
...Blue States vote against gay marriage because even liberals are afraid of Red-Neck Evangelicals.
You guys LOVE Jeebus, and profess to love your neighbours while simultaneously hating
-Jews
-blacks
-liberals
-socialists
-gays
-muslims
-non-Christians
-gays
-lesbians
-intellectuals
-thinker
-readers
...you book-burning parasites are so sure that you are right that you can never ever admit your mistakes.
A good example is the fact that you avoid every argument that you cannot counter or dismiss... just as you are doing in this thread.
The Luke
Now, you're claiming that the "blue" states passed amendments, out of fear from "red-neck evangelicals". Now, that's rich.
Apparently, you don't comprenhend very well. You start another thread, with that other foolishness you posted, and I will address that (and pick it apart), period.
-
Now, you're claiming that the "blue" states passed amendments, out of fear from "red-neck evangelicals". Now, that's rich.
Apparently, you don't comprenhend very well. You start another thread, with that other foolishness you posted, and I will address that (and pick it apart), period.
Do it here... it simply can't be done.
Someone else will second this request so as to show a second thread is unnecessary.
The Luke
-
Do it here... it simply can't be done.
Someone else will second this request so as to show a second thread is unnecessary.
The Luke
This thread is specifically about same-sex "marriage". And, notwithstanding my initial off-topic post, I'm not hijacking this thread to address the myriad of off-topic foolishness you've posted.
Start another thread, and I will deal with that mess there.
Now, I'd love to see you support this newest wacky claim, citing fear of rednecks as the reason why the "blue" states passed constitutional amendments, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I don't call there being that many rednecks in Hawaii or Michigan. And, I don't think that there'll be that many in California.
-
MCWAY,
Stop the evasion... all my points are properly formulated and thought out.
You dismiss arguments you can't counter while attempting to infer that these points don't warrant discussion.
Every second post of yours is an attempt to either run off on a tangent or change the subject.
It's not clever... it's a blatant transparent ploy used by morons to argue above their IQ.
The Luke
-
MCWAY,
Stop the evasion... all my points are properly formulated and thought out.
You dismiss arguments you can't counter while attempting to infer that these points don't warrant discussion.
Every second post of yours is an attempt to either run off on a tangent or change the subject.
It's not clever... it's a blatant transparent ploy used by morons to argue above their IQ.
The Luke
Change the subject? Ummm....genius, the subject is same-sex "marriage", (check the title of the thread) which is what I am discussing.
In fact, I'll go one better. I WILL start a different thread and take apart your pitiful claims there.
-
Wow... MCWAY evaded the question and changed the subject after being asked continuously not to do so.
Surprising... does that constitute a surrender? Did I just win the argument? Funny, I don't feel as if a reasoned rational consensus has been reached... yet none of my arguments have been refuted.
The Luke
-
Wow... MCWAY evaded the question and changed the subject after being asked continuously not to do so.
Surprising... does that constitute a surrender? Did I just win the argument? Funny, I don't feel as if a reasoned rational consensus has been reached... yet none of my arguments have been refuted.
The Luke
Hardly!!! Check the G&O board.
-
Hardly!!! Check the G&O board.
...the only reason you ever start new threads is so that you can use your tired tactics to seemingly turn the argument in your favour.
-start a new thread
-dismiss the argument without addressing the issues raised
-infer the invalidity of your opponents position without actually proving it
-direct the discussion off on a tangent of your choosing
-pick fault with a deliberately misconstrued point
-focus on the misconstrued point of your choosing
-exaggerate the error you deliberately misconstrued
...how many of these tactics are listed on the post-it affixed to your monitor?
The Luke
-
...the only reason you ever start new threads is so that you can use your tired tactics to seemingly turn the argument in your favour.
-start a new thread
-dismiss the argument without addressing the issues raised
-infer the invalidity of your opponents position without actually proving it
-direct the discussion off on a tangent of your choosing
-pick fault with a deliberately misconstrued point
-focus on the misconstrued point of your choosing
-exaggerate the error you deliberately misconstrued
...how many of these tactics are listed on the post-it affixed to your monitor?
The Luke
Are you still living in your parents basement or did you find a job?
-
i hate towel heads and dot heads
-
i hate towel heads and dot heads
Would you approve of a towelhead marrying a dothead?
-
Would you approve of a towelhead marrying a dothead?
yes but only because i am a liberal
-
Great stuff guys. It is so wonderful when I see religion slowly becoming more irrelevant. We are in the age of enlightenment through science and rational thought. We don't need stories written thousands of years ago by a bunch of men who didn't know what a cell was as a belief system. It boggles my mind that any intelligent adult would actually take religion seriously for any other reason then implanted fear from childhood.
-
Great stuff guys. It is so wonderful when I see religion slowly becoming more irrelevant. We are in the age of enlightenment through science and rational thought. We don't need stories written thousands of years ago by a bunch of men who didn't know what a cell was as a belief system. It boggles my mind that any intelligent adult would actually take religion seriously for any other reason then implanted fear from childhood.
Are you saying the only "implanted fear from childhood" you have is the one your uncle Billy introduced you to on a cold winters night?
-
Great stuff guys. It is so wonderful when I see religion slowly becoming more irrelevant. We are in the age of enlightenment through science and rational thought. We don't need stories written thousands of years ago by a bunch of men who didn't know what a cell was as a belief system. It boggles my mind that any intelligent adult would actually take religion seriously for any other reason then implanted fear from childhood.
Based on people who frequent internet boards and chats it would seem that society is getting less religous and more enlightened, but unfortunately that doesn't match up with what you see in the offline world. I think the internet is not really a good reflection of the general population, since internet users (in the sense I'm speaking of) tend to be younger and more educated than society as a whole. You also get a lot of people from places in the world that tend to be far more secular than what is common in most of America.
-
>:( >:(theyre fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked uuuuuuuppppppppp >:( >:(