Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on June 18, 2008, 09:27:40 AM
-
A constitutional ammendment outlawing DIVORCE
No straight person is going to choose not to get married just because gay people are getting married
The true (and only) threat to marriage is DIVORCE
I say this of course assuming that people truly care about protecting marriage and not just forcing one's personal or religious beliefs on someone else (i.e. merely restricting another persons freedom to pursue happiness)
-
The religious sanctity of the wedding vows should be the sticking point for opponents of gay marriage.
Fine. I can see that.
But what's with their problem with the judicial performance of the vows--the secular courthouse marriage? Or those getting married by an Elvis impersonator at Vegas?
I think you are on to something here Straw Man.
-
Most religious marriage ceremonies include some kind vow of lifetime commitment, death do us part, etc....
Isn't it a complete insult to God to take such a vow and then divorce.
I don't understand why fundies aren't protesting at divorce court
I mean, if they are REALLY concerned about the sanctity of marriage
-
The best way to protect marriage is automatic child custody to the father. Most divorces are instigated by women and if they knew it would mean leaving their children, most would choose to work on their marriage.
And, if there are no children, divorce is no big deal.
-
The best way to protect marriage is automatic child custody to the father. Most divorces are instigated by women and if they knew it would mean leaving their children, most would choose to work on their marriage.
And, if there are no children, divorce is no big deal.
well there is still the issue of taking a vow before god and then breaking it.
again, assuming one actually takes such things seriously
-
Marriage is a primitive, useless and wholly unneeded institution which we must part from if we are to proceed as a species.
-
50% of marriages between men and women end up mocking the practice.
-
50% of marriages between men and women end up mocking the practice.
Which only supports my position. (and it's more than 50%)
-
Marriage is a primitive, useless and wholly unneeded institution which we must part from if we are to proceed as a species.
Translation:
I am a bitter virgin and the future does not look good for any kind of vagina action.
;D
-
Marriage is a primitive, useless and wholly unneeded institution which we must part from if we are to proceed as a species.
Don't agree. the break down of the family unit is not a good thing for any nation. And it's breaking down if divorces are on the rise. Just because we are failing at it doesn't mean it's a bad program.
-
Don't agree. the break down of the family unit is not a good thing for any nation. And it's breaking down if divorces are on the rise. Just because we are failing at it doesn't mean it's a bad program.
I agree. Look at the ghettos. Family Unity is not a top priority. We all know how that cycle turns out. Also goes for middle class as well with all of these people flipping out shooting up schools. A strong family is needed for guidance.
-
I agree. Look at the ghettos. Family Unity is not a top priority. We all know how that cycle turns out. Also goes for middle class as well with all of these people flipping out shooting up schools. A strong family is needed for guidance.
I agree, and whether you believe in God or not, a good moral upbringing rooted in a religion, like christianity is good for producing productive law abiding citizens. Of course there are some of us who do not need laws to be good people. just not enough.
-
Translation:
I am a bitter virgin and the future does not look good for any kind of vagina action.
;D
Fucking random pussy is fine. I am not bitter. I don't kowtow to any wench's orders; I do what I want and I never have to listen to a wench's whining and rants.
It's married people who end up fucking once a month because fucking the same person becomes a task and very, very boring.
-
I agree, and whether you believe in God or not, a good moral upbringing rooted in a religion, like christianity is good for producing productive law abiding citizens. Of course there are some of us who do not need laws to be good people. just not enough.
Absolutely unnecessary. Look at Scandinavia: highly secular, plenty of couples having children without the primitive burden of marriage.
Yours is the old argument from utility; some people need religion and marriage as a kind of moral viagra. Maybe, but if that's the case they don't deserve to be a part of society in the first place.
-
Absolutely unnecessary. Look at Scandinavia: highly secular, plenty of couples having children without the primitive burden of marriage.
Yours is the old argument from utility; some people need religion and marriage as a kind of moral viagra. Maybe, but if that's the case they don't deserve to be a part of society in the first place.
Are you suggesting we ship them all off to the moon?
Your point is well taken, but not the timing. We just aren't there yet. not even close.
-
Are you suggesting we ship them all off to the moon?
Your point is well taken, but not the timing. We just aren't there yet. not even close.
Good idea. Maybe Antartica would be a better destination for them though.
-
Fucking random pussy is fine. I am not bitter. I don't kowtow to any wench's orders; I do what I want and I never have to listen to a wench's whining and rants.
It's married people who end up fucking once a month because fucking the same person becomes a task and very, very boring.
You are right about fucking random pussy and it does get old banging out the same ass but how long do you think you can play the field? Nothing lasts forever. The game may go on but all players retire whether by choice or not.
-
You are right about fucking random pussy and it does get old banging out the same ass but how long do you think you can play the field? Nothing lasts forever. The game may go on but all players retire whether by choice or not.
No one says you have to give up your freedom, new pussy or not.
-
society would be a mess if people didn't get married.
-
society would be a mess if people didn't get married.
Look at Scandinavia; people hardly bother with marriage there anymore and they have the highest standards of living in the world; maybe in backwater USA 240 but not everywhere...
-
Look at Scandinavia; people hardly bother with marriage there anymore and they have the highest standards of living in the world; maybe in backwater USA 240 but not everywhere...
aside from the piece of paper, do they still have the familiy structure? do they still have man/woman/baby under most roofs?
-
Most religious marriage ceremonies include some kind vow of lifetime commitment, death do us part, etc....
Isn't it a complete insult to God to take such a vow and then divorce.
I don't understand why fundies aren't protesting at divorce court
I mean, if they are REALLY concerned about the sanctity of marriage
Perhaps, it's because divorce is allowed (Scripturally speaking), in certain cases, most notably ADULTERY.
The marriage vows include, "forsaking all others", "for richer or poorer", "love, honor, cherish", giving yourself ONLY to your husband/wife, etc.
If those vows are broken, then something has to be done to either reconcile or terminate the marriage. I get your point that people are friviously divorcing. But, part of that may have to do with the relative ease of getting married. Perhaps, the whole dowry thing was a smart move, afterall. In OT times, people paid 50 shekels for a bride which (if you didn't have the cash up front) was 5-7 years worth of wages. Let's say the average American salary was $40,000. Can you imagine having to cough up $200,000 for a wife? No wonder dudes back then were enraged if their brides weren't virgins!!! ;D
What about mandatory marriage counseling? Not the kind that people get, when their marriage is on the brink of doom, but BEFORE they tie the knot. A lot of churches offer that; some pastors will not marry a couple, until they've been through their particular marriage counseling classes.
However, most pastors don't mandate such a thing. And, since the government doesn't either, a couple can simply shop around their city to find a pastor that will do the ceremony, without counseling beforehand.
The one problem I'd see with mandatory marriage counseling would involve the clash of ideas, between religious-based marriage principles and non-religious ones.
But, it's a start.
-
Fucking random pussy is fine. I am not bitter. I don't kowtow to any wench's orders; I do what I want and I never have to listen to a wench's whining and rants.
It's married people who end up fucking once a month because fucking the same person becomes a task and very, very boring.
Says who? My wife and I get our freak on, quite regularly. And, with our anniversary on the horizon, there'll be more consummation on the horizon.
So, if you don't hear for a while, within the next week or two, it's because the Mrs. has render me unconscious.
Praise the Lord and pass the whipped cream!!! ;D
-
your just kidding yourself!
Nope!! My anniversary is in a week and a half. So it's more lovin' for me and the Mrs. ;D
-
you sound like your trying to convince yourself.
Then may I suggest some Q-tips. Contrary to what you and Deicide may think, I'm a happily-married guy.
-
aside from the piece of paper, do they still have the familiy structure? do they still have man/woman/baby under most roofs?
Sure but gay marriage/civil unions are legal as well.
-
Perhaps, it's because divorce is allowed (Scripturally speaking), in certain cases, most notably ADULTERY.
The marriage vows include, "forsaking all others", "for richer or poorer", "love, honor, cherish", giving yourself ONLY to your husband/wife, etc.
If those vows are broken, then something has to be done to either reconcile or terminate the marriage. I get your point that people are friviously divorcing. But, part of that may have to do with the relative ease of getting married. Perhaps, the whole dowry thing was a smart move, afterall. In OT times, people paid 50 shekels for a bride which (if you didn't have the cash up front) was 5-7 years worth of wages. Let's say the average American salary was $40,000. Can you imagine having to cough up $200,000 for a wife? No wonder dudes back then were enraged if their brides weren't virgins!!! ;D
What about mandatory marriage counseling? Not the kind that people get, when their marriage is on the brink of doom, but BEFORE they tie the knot. A lot of churches offer that; some pastors will not marry a couple, until they've been through their particular marriage counseling classes.
However, most pastors don't mandate such a thing. And, since the government doesn't either, a couple can simply shop around their city to find a pastor that will do the ceremony, without counseling beforehand.
The one problem I'd see with mandatory marriage counseling would involve the clash of ideas, between religious-based marriage principles and non-religious ones.
But, it's a start.
To piggyback on this, what about the concept of a mandatory "bethroment" period? In Biblical times, I believe a couple was bethroed (engaged) for a year, before the marriage was finalized. This would also explain why the parents made the arrangements.
Part of it was a logistical thing, i.e. making sure the hubby-to-be had the skills to pay the bills (a steady job, decent credit, a functional home/apartment, etc.).
-
Reality is the biggest challenge to marriage, Straw Man.
-
Reality is the biggest challenge to marriage, Straw Man.
To quote a famous pastor, Love is a dream; marriage is the alarm clock!
-
Marriages should have an expiration date, just like your license. After 5 years, you can either re-commit for another 5 or opt out. Get rid of divorce all-together. People would be a lot happier and more honest about the state of their relationship with their husband/wife.
-
Nope!! My anniversary is in a week and a half. So it's more lovin' for me and the Mrs. ;D
MCWAY, Congratulations, both on your anniversary and also on having a good wife and a happy marriage! ;D
-
An experienced marriage counselor said that when couples "falls in love" the euphoria lasts about two years at the most. So he advices couples who "are in love" to date for two years or more, after which, if they still want to spend the rest of their life together, then that's when they should consider marriage.
The problem is that too many couples today get married first, driven by the euphoria, and divorce after the euphoria passes, two or so years later.
How about a law that couples must date or be engaged for at least two years before they are allowed to marry? It's no guarantee that it will work, but it might give the marriage a much better chance.
By two years of dating before marriage, I don't mean that couples should live together for two years before they marry. Statistically, couples who live together before they marry have an even higher divorce rate.
-
The nuclear family, of which consists of a marriage between a man and a woman which forms the core, is the basis for any stable nation. Religiously based or not, there are many examples that show that the deterioration of the nuclear family leads to increased crime and "perversions" in the nation which it exists. The US is a great example.
Marriage is a JOB. It takes hard work to maintain. There will be bumps in the road and difficulties, but they must be overcome, just like everything else in life. Divorce is weak, and I have a much lesser opinion of anyone who went through a divorce, outside of extraordinary circumstances.
America is going down the toilet because the majority of people now come from broken families. The traditional nuclear family is in the minority, and thanks to the sick, demented gay lobbyists who hide under the guise of such names as the "human rights commission", it is simply seen as an equivalent lifestyle choice.
-
I started this thread after watching stories on the news of religious nutbags disrupting gay weddings in California.
If these religious zealots are truly concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage they should be outside divorce courts harrassing those other good christians who seem to have no problem renegging on the sacred vows that they took before the god in whom they claim to believe
In that same spirit they should have no problem if Jews or Muslims harrassed them outside McDonalds for eating a bacon cheeseburger
-
a marriage is only as good as the people who are in it. my favorite is these people who have kids, get a divorce, but reamin best friends ::). nice for the kids.
42 years my parents are still going strong. still get along perfect, and never want to be apart. thats a dead breed.
i dont feel like looking it up. but i'd like to see the comparision between kids with married/divorced parents, and their different stats on crime/education.
-
I started this thread after watching stories on the news of religious nutbags disrupting gay weddings in California.
If these religious zealots are truly concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage they should be outside divorce courts harrassing those other good christians who seem to have no problem renegging on the sacred vows that they took before the god in whom they claim to believe
In that same spirit they should have no problem if Jews or Muslims harrassed them outside McDonalds for eating a bacon cheeseburger
I like the way you think Strawman. :D
-
I like the way you think Strawman. :D
Thanks
-
An experienced marriage counselor said that when couples "falls in love" the euphoria lasts about two years at the most. So he advices couples who "are in love" to date for two years or more, after which, if they still want to spend the rest of their life together, then that's when they should consider marriage.
The problem is that too many couples today get married first, driven by the euphoria, and divorce after the euphoria passes, two or so years later.
How about a law that couples must date or be engaged for at least two years before they are allowed to marry? It's no guarantee that it will work, but it might give the marriage a much better chance.
That sounds quite similar to the bethroment period mentioned in the Bible. Only, that period was for one year. Then again, if men had to cough up a dowry, 50 shekels (the modern equivalent being $200,000 or 5 years' wages, assuming the average USA yearly salary is 40 grand), for a wife, I think guys would think LONG AND HARD, before proposing to his sweetheart.
By two years of dating before marriage, I don't mean that couples should live together for two years before they marry. Statistically, couples who live together before they marry have an even higher divorce rate.
That's the least of their problem. Women who shack up are FAR more likely to be victims of domestic abuse and, should they have kids from previous marriages/relationships, those children are much more likely to be molested.
I believe there was some controversy about Ohio's marriage amendment, because some plaintiffs argued that the amendment has some wording, resulting in a scenario in which the law didn't offer the same protections from the police for unmarried women, who were victims of domestic abuse, as it did for married women who were abused.
-
That sound quite similar to the bethroment period mentioned in the Bible. Only, that period was for one year. Then again, if men had to cough up a dowry, 50 shekels (the modern equivalent being $200,000 or 5 years' wages, assuming the average USA yearly salary is 40 grand), for a wife, I think guys would think LONG AND HARD, before proposing to his sweetheart.
Yup, I thought about your earlier post about this as I was typing my post about waiting two years. ;D
That's the least of their problem. Women who shack up are FAR more likely to be victims of domestic abuse and, should have have kids from previous marriages/relationships, those children are much more likely to be molested.
I believe there was some controversy about Ohio's marriage amendment, because some plaintiffs argued that the amendment has some wording, resulting in a scenario in which the law didn't offer the same protections from the police for unmarried women, who were victims of domestic abuse, as it did for married women who were abused.
Interesting! I did not know that.
-
Yup, I thought about your earlier post about this as I was typing my post about waiting two years. ;D
Interesting! I did not know that.
Unfortunately, that is true. Shacking up is dangerous for women and it's dangerous for children, especially young girls.
-
Perhaps, it's because divorce is allowed (Scripturally speaking), in certain cases, most notably ADULTERY.
The marriage vows include, "forsaking all others", "for richer or poorer", "love, honor, cherish", giving yourself ONLY to your husband/wife, etc.
If those vows are broken, then something has to be done to either reconcile or terminate the marriage. I get your point that people are friviously divorcing. But, part of that may have to do with the relative ease of getting married. Perhaps, the whole dowry thing was a smart move, afterall. In OT times, people paid 50 shekels for a bride which (if you didn't have the cash up front) was 5-7 years worth of wages. Let's say the average American salary was $40,000. Can you imagine having to cough up $200,000 for a wife? No wonder dudes back then were enraged if their brides weren't virgins!!! ;D
What about mandatory marriage counseling? Not the kind that people get, when their marriage is on the brink of doom, but BEFORE they tie the knot. A lot of churches offer that; some pastors will not marry a couple, until they've been through their particular marriage counseling classes.
However, most pastors don't mandate such a thing. And, since the government doesn't either, a couple can simply shop around their city to find a pastor that will do the ceremony, without counseling beforehand.
The one problem I'd see with mandatory marriage counseling would involve the clash of ideas, between religious-based marriage principles and non-religious ones.
But, it's a start.
Where is divorce allowed in the bible?
Do you really think we should have mandatory marriage counseling required by the government and provided by churches?
I assume you're going to allow the 101 different kinds of christians to counsel themselves. What about the jews, muslims, sikhs, hindu, etc.... and of course all the Agnostics, Atheists, and Undecideds.
Would you propose using my tax dollars for this venture is social science?
I think it's likely we are not the same page and probably not even in the same book
-
Where is divorce allowed in the bible?
Do you really think we should have mandatory marriage counseling required by the government and provided by churches?
I assume you're going to allow the 101 different kinds of christians to counsel themselves. What about the jews, muslims, sikhs, hindu, etc.... and of course all the Agnostics, Atheists, and Undecideds.
Would you propose using my tax dollars for this venture is social science?
I think it's likely we are not the same page and probably not even in the same book
McWay gets owned again..lol.
-
actually I did find a bunch of references to divorce in the bible but like almost everything else in that hodgepodge of a book there are tons of contradictory passages.
-
The nuclear family, of which consists of a marriage between a man and a woman which forms the core, is the basis for any stable nation. Religiously based or not, there are many examples that show that the deterioration of the nuclear family leads to increased crime and "perversions" in the nation which it exists. The US is a great example.
Marriage is a JOB. It takes hard work to maintain. There will be bumps in the road and difficulties, but they must be overcome, just like everything else in life. Divorce is weak, and I have a much lesser opinion of anyone who went through a divorce, outside of extraordinary circumstances.
America is going down the toilet because the majority of people now come from broken families. The traditional nuclear family is in the minority, and thanks to the sick, demented gay lobbyists who hide under the guise of such names as the "human rights commission", it is simply seen as an equivalent lifestyle choice.
Id like to see some of this statistical data. Your bias shows through in your statements and that makes is very difficult to believe there is any truth in what your saying. It sounds like your scapegoating.
-
Where is divorce allowed in the bible?
You can start with Matt. 19:
Verses 4-8
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Do you really think we should have mandatory marriage counseling required by the government and provided by churches?
I assume you're going to allow the 101 different kinds of christians to counsel themselves. What about the jews, muslims, sikhs, hindu, etc.... and of course all the Agnostics, Atheists, and Undecideds.
What about them? No one said that the churches were the only places that could provide them, just as churches aren't the only places where people get married. The point of my question was for you to ACTUALLY PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS. If you have suggestinos as to how marriage counseling should be done, let's hear it.
One of the ways to help prevent divorce is to make sure that the couple are fully aware of what they are about to undertake. Marriage counseling can help toward that effort. There are emotional, financial, spiritual, practical, and philosophical aspects to marriage. I hope you're not suggesting that the godless crew is incapable of addressing those (sans the "spiritual" ones, of course).
Would you propose using my tax dollars for this venture is social science?
I think it's likely we are not the same page and probably not even in the same book
That's strange. I wasn't aware that YOU were the only one who paid taxes in this country.
Since you were the one who came up with the thread about the "Real Way to Protect Marriage", I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you actually had some legitimate suggestions. Silly me!!! You're just about bleating and complaining about Christians, particularly those who disagree with you on marriage and homosexuals.
-
Here's my simple advice - everyone mind their own fucking business.
Gays should be allowed to marry in civil ceremonies and not be persecuted by religious nutbags
Religious nutbags should be allowed to do whatever they want provided it doesn't harm anyone else or involve having sex or abusing children
Stop deluding yourself that the bible or christianity is some kind of moral compass that need to be imposed on others.
-
Here's my simple advice - everyone mind their own fucking business.
Gays should be allowed to marry in civil ceremonies and not be persecuted by religious nutbags
Religious nutbags should be allowed to do whatever they want provided it doesn't harm anyone else or involve having sex or abusing children
Stop deluding yourself that the bible or christianity is some kind of moral compass that need to be imposed on others.
And your godless belief is a moral compass to be imposed on everyone because........
Furthermore, who says that it's wrong to abuse children or to harm anyone else? Why that would be you imposing your beliefs on rapists and child molesters everywhere. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!
And, since you're so fired up about gay "marriage", try beating the streets, get a petiton started, and go for a constitutional amendment in your home state (assuming it isn't California or Massachusetts) to get it done.
-
And your godless belief is a moral compass to be imposed on everyone? Why?
Furthermore, who says that it's wrong to abuse children or to harm anyone else? Why that would be you imposing your beliefs on rapists and child molesters everywhere. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!
And, since you're so fired up about gay "marriage", try beating the streets, get a petiton started, and go for a constitutional amendment in your home state (assuming it isn't California or Massachusetts) to get it done.
My moral compass is simple - you should be free to do pretty much whatever you want provided it doesn't harm, restrict or endanger others.
Gays getting married does not in any way harm straight people who want to get married nor have any effect on the legitimacy of their marriage. Religious kooks who feel their belief or their god is somehow threatened should take a step or two back and try to get a larger perspective and realize that not everyone shares their beliefs and they have no right to impose their beliefs on others.
As for a consititutional ammendment - I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to either allow or restrict marriage.
-
My moral compass is simple - you should be free to do pretty much whatever you want provided it doesn't harm, restrict or endanger others.
Gays getting married does not in any way harm straight people who want to get married nor have any effect on the legitimacy of their marriage. Religious kooks who feel their belief or their god is somehow threatened should take a step or two back and try to get a larger perspective and realize that not everyone shares their beliefs and they have no right to impose their beliefs on others.
As for a consititutional ammendment - I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to either allow or restrict marriage.
If the issues is simply a matter of shared beliefs, that still puts you in the position of imposing your beliefs unto others. If you share the belief that someone shouldn't take your property without your permission, your belief "restricts" thieves. Earlier, you mentioned that people shouldn't abuse children. That means you hold to beliefs that "restrict" pedophiles, who don't share your beliefs that getting freaky with kids is verboten.
Did you vote for raising minimum wage? If you did (but don't make minimum wage, yourself), CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've just made your voice heard on an issue that doesn't involve you directly.
With regards to your take on a constitutional amendment, if a constitutional amendment isn't necessary, then who has the moral authority to decide whether same-sex "marriage" should be legal or not and why? With an amendment (at least, at the state level), that decision rides with the people, as it will in Florida and California about 4 months from now.
-
If the issues is simply a matter of shared beliefs, that still puts you in the position of imposing your beliefs unto others. If you share the belief that someone shouldn't take your property without your permission, your belief "restricts" thieves. Earlier, you mentioned that people shouldn't abuse children. That means you hold to beliefs that "restrict" pedophiles, who don't share your beliefs that getting freaky with kids is verboten.
What is it about harming others that you don't understand.
Did you vote for raising minimum wage? If you did (but don't make minimum wage, yourself), CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've just made your voice heard on an issue that doesn't involve you directly.
What does this have to do with marriage and when did I say I could only vote on things that directly affected me? BTW - I don't recall ever getting to vote on minimum wage. Did you?
With regards to your take on a constitutional amendment, if a constitutional amendment isn't necessary, then who has the moral authority to decide whether same-sex "marriage" should be legal or not and why? With an amendment (at least, at the state level), that decision rides with the people, as it will in Florida and California about 4 months from now.
No one has the moral authority because it's not a moral issue. It's a civil rights issue and a legal issue that has been addressed by the courts and there's simply no reason to ammend the constitution (state or federal) to make any statement about marriage
Again, it's really simple. If you are personally against gay marriage then you a completely free to not get "gay married" See how easy that is.
Here's a question for you: Should the state prevent atheist from getting married??
-
What is it about harming others that you don't understand.
Who determines what harms whom? You don't seem to be grasping that part.
What does this have to do with marriage and when did I say I could only vote on things that directly affected me? BTW - I don't recall ever getting to vote on minimum wage. Did you?
No one said you did. The point (which you missed) is that you can (and probably have) voice your views, via the ballot box, on issues in which you had no dog in the fight. Yet, you seem to get miffed when others do the same, particularly as it relates to gay "marriage". Are you planning on insulting the folks who vote "Yes" for Florida and California's marriage amendments?
No one has the moral authority because it's not a moral issue. It's a civil rights issue and a legal issue that has been addressed by the courts and there's simply no reason to ammend the constitution (state or federal) to make any statement about marriage
And who made the proclamation that marriage isn't a moral issue again?
As for the legal aspects of it, ultimately the PEOPLE make the laws. As it relates to California, its constitution (framed by its people) states that electorate can amend the constitution by vote. This November, the voters get to have their say in the marriage matter. If they pass the amendment, marriage will be (once again) clearly defined as a union between one man and one woman, rendering the state Supreme Court's verdict moot.
Laws are based on morals. What people believe is right or wrong frame how laws gets drafted. And, their religious beliefs play a role to that effect. If marriage isn't a moral issue, then there's no reason to let a minority change its definition, when the majority does NOT want that to happen. It simply becomes a numbers game.
Again, it's really simple. If you are personally against gay marriage then you a completely free to not get "gay married" See how easy that is.
Here's a question for you: Should the state prevent atheist from getting married??
Nope. There's no requirement that the parties involved believe in a deity. Only that, except for Massachusetts and California (until November, at least), it requires one man and one woman.
-
Who determines what harms whom? You don't seem to be grasping that part.
can we agree that the victim of child abuse and theft have been harmed?
if not, there is no point in going forward
-
The best way to protect marriage is automatic child custody to the father. Most divorces are instigated by women and if they knew it would mean leaving their children, most would choose to work on their marriage.
the automatic child custody to the father would have alot of fathers i know working hard to make their marriage work
-
My moral compass is simple - you should be free to do pretty much whatever you want provided it doesn't harm, restrict or endanger others.
Gays getting married does not in any way harm straight people who want to get married nor have any effect on the legitimacy of their marriage. Religious kooks who feel their belief or their god is somehow threatened should take a step or two back and try to get a larger perspective and realize that not everyone shares their beliefs and they have no right to impose their beliefs on others.
As for a consititutional ammendment - I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to either allow or restrict marriage.
Well said Straw Man, well said.
-
I am Pro Marriage all the way but some marriages just end up disasters.
Some people are tricked into marriage, some people marry for the wrong reason or you just never knew your partner was a psycho, money grabbing, soul sucking, sexless slab of crap till the honey moon ended.
I have seen so many of my buddies male and female stuck in shit marriages that will never get better because the partner has no will to change and do their part.
For them I believe divorce at the right time is an option.
-
I am Pro Marriage all the way but some marriages just end up disasters.
Some people are tricked into marriage, some people marry for the wrong reason or you just never knew your partner was a psycho, money grabbing, soul sucking, sexless slab of crap till the honey moon ended.
I have seen so many of my buddies male and female stuck in shit marriages that will never get better because the partner has no will to change and do their part.
For them I believe divorce at the right time is an option.
That's why I mentioned that there should be some sort of marriage counseling, BEFORE you officially tie the knot, in order to prevent these pitfalls, as well as a bethroment period. The more prepared you are before marriage, the more likely your marriage will be successful. Marriage counseling can also show that you aren't ready for marriage.
Marriage counseling training should cover things like:
- Financial responsibilities
- Role of the Husband
- Role of the Wife
- Emotional Support
- Sexual Fulfillment (my personal favorite) ;D
- Religious Instruction for the Home (Philosophical Instruction for our godless buddies)
Those are some off the top of my head.
-
That's why I mentioned that there should be some sort of marriage counseling, BEFORE you officially tie the knot, in order to prevent these pitfalls, as well as a bethroment period. The more prepared you are before marriage, the more likely your marriage will be successful. Marriage counseling can also show that you aren't ready for marriage.
Marriage counseling training should cover things like:
- Financial responsibilities
- Role of the Husband
- Role of the Wife
- Emotional Support
- Sexual Fulfillment (my personal favorite) ;D
- Religious Instruction for the Home (Philosophical Instruction for our godless buddies)
Those are some off the top of my head.
Says the fundy nutcase; let's just go straight back to the Medieval Church while we are at it.... ::)
-
Says the fundy nutcase; let's just go straight back to the Medieval Church while we are at it.... ::)
Exactly what is the point of your heathen blubberings, this time?
Granted, I know you'd prefer to do the baby mama thing, so you can haul tail and run, once your backbone becomes a wishbone; but (and this may come as a surprise to you), many people, even those who don't believe in God, who are interested in marriage.
Too many divorces are caused by frivoulous marriages, in which the husband and wife enter the union, unprepared (emotionally, financially, sexually, spiritually/philosophically, etc.).
Preparation for that takes time. So, it would be wise to invest such time, to stack the deck in favor of a successful marriage.
-
A constitutional ammendment outlawing DIVORCE
No straight person is going to choose not to get married just because gay people are getting married
The true (and only) threat to marriage is DIVORCE
I say this of course assuming that people truly care about protecting marriage and not just forcing one's personal or religious beliefs on someone else (i.e. merely restricting another persons freedom to pursue happiness)
There are far more straight people divorcing than there could be gay people marrying, but apparently Jesus' rule of "one strike and you're out" is too inconvenient for the religious right to actually walk the walk. But it isn't really about protecting the sanctity of marriage. It's a fear of the secularization of society.
In the same vein you have American fundie groups lobbying in countries like Turkey for the removal of certain scientific teachings in favor of creationism. To them, a moderate, fledgling secular society is far more dangerous than raising new generations of wacks yelling Allah is great as they blow themselves up in crowded market places.
-
That's why I mentioned that there should be some sort of marriage counseling, BEFORE you officially tie the knot, in order to prevent these pitfalls, as well as a bethroment period. The more prepared you are before marriage, the more likely your marriage will be successful. Marriage counseling can also show that you aren't ready for marriage.
Marriage counseling training should cover things like:
- Financial responsibilities
- Role of the Husband
- Role of the Wife
- Emotional Support
- Sexual Fulfillment (my personal favorite) ;D
- Religious Instruction for the Home (Philosophical Instruction for our godless buddies)
Those are some off the top of my head.
How does this 3 year waiting period work anyway? What happens to pregnant couples? Are the kids shuffled into foster care till the counseling is over? Are they exempt, and get fast-tracked, in which case anyone who wants to bypass the waiting period simply has to start a family?
And who wants to receive sexual fulfillment counseling from the neighborhood nerd pastor? :-X
What's wrong with Jesus's rule that you get one kick at the can and that's it, ergo, abolish divorce?
Better still, if people want to divorce, why not institute a law that all their worldly belongings then go to the Church? All those messy, extended court battles would be a thing of the past, and it would benefit the needy. Of course, in both cases the murder rate would go up, but nothing's perfect.
-
Why can't all the fundie nuts just be thankful that they live in a country that allows them the freedom of religious expression and for the love of Jebus stop pretending to be victimized when people you don't even know, who don't share your beliefs, do something that you don't agree with
-
Why can't all the fundie nuts just be thankful that they live in a country that allows them the freedom of religious expression and for the love of Jebus stop pretending to be victimized when people you don't even know, who don't share your beliefs, do something that you don't agree with
LOL the same could be said about a number of other groups...
-
LOL the same could be said about a number of other groups...
Can you name a few? :)
-
How does this 3 year waiting period work anyway? What happens to pregnant couples? Are the kids shuffled into foster care till the counseling is over? Are they exempt, and get fast-tracked, in which case anyone who wants to bypass the waiting period simply has to start a family?
And who wants to receive sexual fulfillment counseling from the neighborhood nerd pastor? :-X
What makes you think the pastor is a nerd or that he would be unable to provide such counsel? Furthermore, if you look at that list I mentioned, I didn't limit such to pastors. As for pregnancy issues, one factor in many divorces is the "shotgun wedding" (i.e. marrying a girl, simply because you knocked her up). If you're weren't prepared for marriage beforehand, a baby isn't going to change things. Back in the day, people stuck it out, for the good of the family. That ain't happening in the "it's-all-about-me" generation that has dominate the late 20th/early21st century.
Besides, if a couple in such a situation still legitimately wanted to get hitched, they'd still benefit from marriage counseling.
Would you agree that marriage counseling should be facilitated to couples, whether the marriage occurs at a church or not?
Regarding the waiting period, I mentioned that the bethroment period in marriage, in OT times was a year. Loco mentioned that people should date for at least two years before getting married, as it is during that period that the "euphoria" wears off and the real work to sustain the relationship begins.
If I'm not mistaken, the one-year bethroment occured AFTER the dowry changed hands, as a prepatory period to get things ready for marriage (i.e. securing finances, living arrangements, etc.).
What's wrong with Jesus's rule that you get one kick at the can and that's it, ergo, abolish divorce?
Better still, if people want to divorce, why not institute a law that all their worldly belongings then go to the Church? All those messy, extended court battles would be a thing of the past, and it would benefit the needy. Of course, in both cases the murder rate would go up, but nothing's perfect.
One of the reasons that Israelite men were instructed not to intermarry with the other "-ites", around them is because they picked up a lot of their bad habits, including friviously dumping their wives. Divorce was instituted for the women's sake so that, should they get dropped for trivial reasons, they can find a better hubby.
In the passage where Jesus mentioned divorce, the folks asking Him the questions are trying to trip Him up, hoping that he says something, contrary to OT law, so that they can nail Him for being a false prophet. He explained to the that the reason Moses authorized divorce is because the Israelite men were mistreating their wives. But, if they're so concerned about the rules, they should go back to the highest standard (i.e. adultery being grounds for divorce).
-
(http://www.collegelaughs.ca/college-girls/my-goodness.jpg)
very nice, you have my permission to visually enchance threads here at will.
-
OK, I do NOT get this shit. It's a stupid wedge issue anyway but I have one question that makes the hole thing stupid as hell.
This sanctity of marriage bullshit. I hear all this God says marriage is between a man an woman. This is that their bitch revolves around how GOD defines marriage. Well ok, where's the uproar for justice of the peace/non religious marriage? If they didn't have a bitch with that which is outside the scope of God and religion, how can they have any ground to stand against a state allowing same sex marriage which falls into the same jurisdiction outside religious marriage? yea you stupid mother fucking idiots, where do you get off honestly? Again, pull your retarded heads out of your asses and see all of this in perspective and for what it is. Pure bullshit meant to make you ignore everything else IMPORTANT and run to the polls like an idiot to vote against fags ::)
-
But, if they're so concerned about the rules, they should go back to the highest standard (i.e. adultery being grounds for divorce).
Sheesh - your posts are loonnnggg and ridiculous.
I thought Adultery was grounds for DEATH in the OT.
Here's an idea, why don't you make up a huge list of silly rules for yourself and let everyone else do the same for themselves (or not)
-
I think the Israeli men in that story were doing far more than mistreating their wives.... :-X
-
But it isn't really about protecting the sanctity of marriage. It's a fear of the secularization of society.
Hi Deedee! Are you sure about that? How do you know that pastors are not instead afraid of losing their freedom of religion, afraid of lawsuits for refusing to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies? If pastors sincerely believe in the Bible, which clearly condemns homosexuality, they cannot in good faith conduct a same sex marriage ceremony. But I can see same sex couples suing pastors and churches for refusing to conduct their marriage ceremony. I'm not an American, but I see legitimate reasons for Christians, and other groups in America opposing the legalization of same sex marriage, at least for the sake of religious freedom.
-
Hi Deedee! Are you sure about that? How do you know that pastors are not instead afraid of losing their freedom of religion, afraid of lawsuits for refusing to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies? If pastors sincerely believe in the Bible, which clearly condemns homosexuality, they cannot in good faith conduct a same sex marriage ceremony. But I can see same sex couples suing pastors and churches for refusing to conduct their marriage ceremony. I'm not an American, but I see legitimate reasons for Christians to oppose the legalization of same sex marriage, at least for the sake of religious freedom.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
Our forefathers were puritans but still understood the dangers a state religion posed to personal freedoms.
-
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
Our forefathers were puritans but still understood the dangers a state religion posed to personal freedoms.
True, but how can you have both in this case? Suing a pastor for refusing to conduct a same sex marriage ceremony is not religious freedom. His beliefs in this case do not harm anyone, but he is unable to exercise his religious freedom. I did not say whether or not I oppose same sex marriage. I only stated that I see the above as a legitimate reason to oppose it.
-
True, but how can you have both in this case? Suing a pastor for refusing to conduct a same sex marriage ceremony is not religious freedom. His beliefs in this case do not harm anyone, but he is unable to exercise his religious freedom. I did not say whether or not I oppose same sex marriage. I only stated that I see the above as a legitimate reason to oppose it.
Problem is imposing one's beliefs on others. I have a right to opinions about fat people but not to stop McDonald's from selling them food.
-
OK, I do NOT get this shit. It's a stupid wedge issue anyway but I have one question that makes the hole thing stupid as hell.
This sanctity of marriage bullshit. I hear all this God says marriage is between a man an woman. This is that their bitch revolves around how GOD defines marriage. Well ok, where's the uproar for justice of the peace/non religious marriage? If they didn't have a bitch with that which is outside the scope of God and religion, how can they have any ground to stand against a state allowing same sex marriage which falls into the same jurisdiction outside religious marriage? yea you stupid mother fucking idiots, where do you get off honestly? Again, pull your retarded heads out of your asses and see all of this in perspective and for what it is. Pure bullshit meant to make you ignore everything else IMPORTANT and run to the polls like an idiot to vote against fags ::)
This may come as a shock to you, Hugo, but people can care about MULTIPLE ISSUES AT THE SAME TIME!!! Just because someone wants to vote for a marriage amendment in their state DOES NOT mean that they are doing so, at the expense of other issues (i.e. the economy, Iraq, gas prices, etc.).
Besides, how much effort does it take to punch (or circle in) "Yes" or "No", next to part of the ballot that has a state's marriage amendment on it?
Here's another news flash. This issue goes BEYOND political parties, race, gender, etc.
Whites voted for marriage amendments.
Blacks voted for marriage amendments.
Latino voted for marriage amendments
Orientals voted for marriage amendments
Democrats voted for marriage amendments
Republicans voted for marriage amendments
"Blue" states voted for marriage amendments
"Red states" voted for marriage amendments
People who voted for Kerry (in 2004) voted for marriage amendments
People who voted for Bush (in 2004) voted for marriage amendments
Christians voted for marriage amendments
Non-Christians voted for marriage amendments
And the list goes on.....
-
This may come as a shock to you, Hugo, but people can care about MULTIPLE ISSUES AT THE SAME TIME!!! Just because someone wants to vote for a marriage amendment in their state DOES NOT mean that they are doing so, at the expense of other issues (i.e. the economy, Iraq, gas prices, etc.).
Besides, how much effort does it take to punch (or circle in) "Yes" or "No", next to part of the ballot that has a state's marriage amendment on it?
Here's another news flash. This issue goes BEYOND political parties, race, gender, etc.
Whites voted for marriage amendments.
Blacks voted for marriage amendments.
Latino voted for marriage amendments
Orientals voted for marriage amendments
Democrats voted for marriage amendments
Republicans voted for marriage amendments
"Blue" states voted for marriage amendments
"Red states" voted for marriage amendments
People who voted for Kerry (in 2004) voted for marriage amendments
People who voted for Bush (in 2004) voted for marriage amendments
Christians voted for marriage amendments
Non-Christians voted for marriage amendments
And the list goes on.....
People who are caught up in myopia. Nonsense.
-
True, but how can you have both in this case? Suing a pastor for refusing to conduct a same sex marriage ceremony is not religious freedom. His beliefs in this case do not harm anyone, but he is unable to exercise his religious freedom. I did not say whether or not I oppose same sex marriage. I only stated that I see the above as a legitimate reason to oppose it.
I would say that Christians who don't stone homosexuals to death aren't exercising their religious freedom either. ::)
-
I would say that Christians who don't stone homosexuals to death aren't exercising their religious freedom either. ::)
Deicide, when did Jesus tell his followers to stone homosexuals to death?
In the Bible adultery is as much sexual immorality as homosexuality is, but when the scribes and Pharisees brought the adulterous woman to Jesus and were ready to stone her to death, Jesus told them "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." So they all left the woman alone. Jesus asked the woman "Has no one condemned you?" and the woman replied "No one, sir". Jesus told her "Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin."
-
Deicide, when did Jesus tell his followers to stone homosexuals to death?
In the Bible adultery is as much sexual immorality as homosexuality is, but when the scribes and Pharisees brought the adulterous woman to Jesus and were ready to stone her to death, Jesus told them "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." So they all left the woman alone. Jesus asked the woman "Has no one condemned you?" and the woman replied "No one, sir". Jesus told her "Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin."
First off, Jebus also said to uphold the OT laws. Second off, Bart Ehrman, the extremely noted NT scholar has shown that that story was a later insertion because it wasn't found in the oldest of manuscripts we have on record. I know you don't care about real biblical scholarship or anything that contradicts your fundamentalist beliefs so you can just ignore it. However here is a link so you can listen to him.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156
-
First off, Jebus also said to uphold the OT laws. Second off, Bart Ehrman, the extremely noted NT scholar has shown that that story was a later insertion because it wasn't found in the oldest of manuscripts we have on record. I know you don't care about real biblical scholarship or anything that contradicts your fundamentalist beliefs so you can just ignore it. However here is a link so you can listen to him.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156
First off, upholding the law and the punishment for disobeying it are two different things.
Second off, I know that story does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, but how does that matter? We are talking about Christian people's beliefs and convictions, and Christians believe those are the words of Jesus.
Christians are not going around killing homosexuals, but here you are trying to convince Christians that we should start. Is that what you want, Deicide, for Christians to listen to you and start going around killing homosexuals? You could start your own cult this way.
-
Here's some bible justice that I'm sure all fundie's can agree with:
Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
-
First off, upholding the law and the punishment for disobeying it are two different things.
Second off, I know that story does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, but how does that matter? We are talking about Christian people's beliefs and convictions, and Christians believe those are the words of Jesus.
Christians are not going around killing homosexuals, but here you are trying to convince Christians that we should start. Is that what you want, Deicide, for Christians to listen to you and start going around killing homosexuals? You could start your own cult this way.
No, they are not. Upholding the law means upholding the standards of punishment.
It matters because the fact that they do not appear in the oldest manuscripts is evidence that they are not the words of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth. It's called evidence, something Christians and religious folk in general tend not to care about that much.
-
No, they are not. Upholding the law means upholding the standards of punishment.
When? According to who? Murder is a crime always and everywhere, but not always punishable by death and not punishable by death everywhere.
Yes they are different. In the Old Testament, God told Israel that any sexual immorality among them was punishable by death, but God never told Israel to go around the world killing all homosexuals.
In the New Testament, Jesus never told anybody to kill homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, etc. There is the Samaritan woman at the well who had been married and divorced five times, and was at the time living with a boyfriend. She was living in fornication, yet Jesus did not condemn her or have her put to death, but instead Jesus called her to repentance and offered her eternal life.
It matters because the fact that they do not appear in the oldest manuscripts is evidence that they are not the words of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth. It's called evidence, something Christians and religious folk in general tend not to care about that much.
For the sake of this debate, and not to hijack the thread, this does not matter since you are talking about Christian beliefs and convictions, and Christians believe that these are the words of Jesus, and Christians don't go around killing homosexuals.
Besides, how and to whom is this evidence that they are not the words of Jesus? The earliest copies of Josephus works, in fact all copies of Josephus works mention Jesus and James, "the brother of Jesus", but you still don't see this as extra-biblical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth.
-
I like the idea of mandatory marriage counseling before marriage. Doesn't have to be religious counseling. And maybe we should revisit no fault divorce? People might be more deliberative about marriage if divorce wasn't so easy.
-
When? According to who? Murder is a crime always and everywhere, but not always punishable by death and not punishable by death everywhere.
Exactly!! Grand theft auto and shoplifting carried different penalties, too. But, both are forms of theft, which is wrong, regardless of the penalty for the specific types.
Yes they are different. In the Old Testament, God told Israel that any sexual immorality among them was punishable by death, but God never told Israel to go around the world killing all homosexuals.
From what I've read, this appears to be a maximum sentence. Keep in mind that David and Bathsheba weren't sentenced to death for their adulterous affair. And in the Gospels, Joseph, who suspects Mary of adultery (due to her pregnancy), opted to send her away quietly, instead of calling for capital punishment.
In the New Testament, Jesus never told anybody to kill homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, etc. There is the Samaritan woman at the well who had been married and divorced five times, and was at the time leaving with a boyfriend. She was living in fornication, yet Jesus did not condemn her or have her put to death, but instead Jesus called her to repentance and offered her eternal life.
For the sake of this debate, and not to hijack the thread, this does not matter since you are talking about Christian beliefs and convictions, and Christians believe that these are the words of Jesus, and Christians don't go around killing homosexuals.
No, they are not. Upholding the law means upholding the standards of punishment.
It matters because the fact that they do not appear in the oldest manuscripts is evidence that they are not the words of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth. It's called evidence, something Christians and religious folk in general tend not to care about that much.
Jesus had the Divine authority to pardon people from sin. It's called MERCY!!! If you're speeding and a cop pulls you over and lets you go with just a warning, THAT DOES NOT MAKE speeding right.
You broke the law; the fact that you didn't suffer the maximum penalty has no bearing on the matter.
-
When? According to who? Murder is a crime always and everywhere, but not always punishable by death and not punishable by death everywhere.
Yes they are different. In the Old Testament, God told Israel that any sexual immorality among them was punishable by death, but God never told Israel to go around the world killing all homosexuals.
In the New Testament, Jesus never told anybody to kill homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, etc. There is the Samaritan woman at the well who had been married and divorced five times, and was at the time leaving with a boyfriend. She was living in fornication, yet Jesus did not condemn her or have her put to death, but instead Jesus called her to repentance and offered her eternal life.
For the sake of this debate, and not to hijack the thread, this does not matter since you are talking about Christian beliefs and convictions, and Christians believe that these are the words of Jesus, and Christians don't go around killing homosexuals.
Besides, how and to whom is this evidence that they are not the words of Jesus? The earliest copies of Josephus works, in fact all copies of Josephus works mention Jesus and James, "the brother of Jesus", but you still don't see this as extra-biblical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth.
Actually, it isn’t difficult at all to dismiss this reference (known as the Jamesian reference)
Here is the complete passage that contains the “Jamesian reference”:
Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9
1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Now, remove the spurious insertion, “who is called Christ” and read the entire passage. You can easily see that Josephus was originally referring to Jesus the son of Damneus, not to Jesus who is called Christ! Although opinion is divided on the authenticity of the “Jamesian reference”, the majority of scholars accept it as spurious, for the very reason that I pointed out.
-
Actually, it isn’t difficult at all to dismiss this reference (known as the Jamesian reference)
Here is the complete passage that contains the “Jamesian reference”:
Now, remove the spurious insertion, “who is called Christ” and read the entire passage. You can easily see that Josephus was originally referring to Jesus the son of Damneus, not to Jesus who is called Christ! Although opinion is divided on the authenticity of the “Jamesian reference”, the majority of scholars accept it as spurious, for the very reason that I pointed out.
The heck they do!!!
It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF. - Christopher Price, "A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum"
But, like Loco, I don't want to hijack this thread. If you want to continue your silliness on Josephus, bring up another thread (or dredge up one of your old ones).
This is about marriage. And, to that end, I will re-direct the topic to the subject at hand
-
I like the idea of mandatory marriage counseling before marriage. Doesn't have to be religious counseling. And maybe we should revisit no fault divorce? People might be more deliberative about marriage if divorce wasn't so easy.
great idea - let's insert the government into even more of our personal lives.
While we're at it let's establish a national morality police to roam to the streets to make sure everyone is wearing a flagpin and crucifix
-
great idea - let's insert the government into even more of our personal lives.
While we're at it let's establish a national morality police to roam to the streets to make sure everyone is wearing a flagpin and crucifix
Less freedom is more responsible freedom.
What a clarion call.
-
We cannot get married or divorced without the government's consent.
I didn't say anything about morality, but the paranoid anti-religious extremists often have trouble seeing past their nose. :)
-
Hi Deedee! Are you sure about that? How do you know that pastors are not instead afraid of losing their freedom of religion, afraid of lawsuits for refusing to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies? If pastors sincerely believe in the Bible, which clearly condemns homosexuality, they cannot in good faith conduct a same sex marriage ceremony. But I can see same sex couples suing pastors and churches for refusing to conduct their marriage ceremony. I'm not an American, but I see legitimate reasons for Christians, and other groups in America opposing the legalization of same sex marriage, at least for the sake of religious freedom.
You're proving the point aren't you? You fear that your right to oppress other people is being oppressed.
What you say is nonsense, and what part of "freedom to practice religion" and separation of Church and State are lost on you? Churches are free to marry or refuse to marry whomever they wish. Some Churches won't marry divorced people, people of mixed faith, people who are mentally handicapped... an Orthodox schul would refuse to perform reform marriages, etc...
The whole thing is more or less about homophobia and fear of secularization. At least, be an honest christian. ;)
-
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
-
You're proving the point aren't you? You fear that your right to oppress other people is being oppressed.
hehehehehehe
-
What makes you think the pastor is a nerd or that he would be unable to provide such counsel? Furthermore, if you look at that list I mentioned, I didn't limit such to pastors. As for pregnancy issues, one factor in many divorces is the "shotgun wedding" (i.e. marrying a girl, simply because you knocked her up). If you're weren't prepared for marriage beforehand, a baby isn't going to change things. Back in the day, people stuck it out, for the good of the family. That ain't happening in the "it's-all-about-me" generation that has dominate the late 20th/early21st century.
Besides, if a couple in such a situation still legitimately wanted to get hitched, they'd still benefit from marriage counseling.
Would you agree that marriage counseling should be facilitated to couples, whether the marriage occurs at a church or not?
No, I don't particularly believe in marriage counseling and think the money spent on it could be put to better use in a few sessions with a good financial planner. Those types of counsellings are rudimentary and provide an overview that is only of use to the most naive people. No pastor, no matter how modern or hot he is, is going to be teaching anyone the value of tantric pleasures. Those types of counseling usually start and end with "be accommodating of his desires" for her and "be more romantic and sensitive" for him. You can get the same in any self-help book.
This thread points out how "soft" the religious right is on adulterers/divorcees and people who engage in every other manner of "sexual immorality" no matter what is written, because it's convenient for heterosexual christians, whereas you're harsh on homosexuals for reasons listed: homophobia, fear of secularization.
-
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
Nice try Beach! Where is there one litigation regarding actual marriage in that article?
Businesses cannot discriminate. That's the law. And it's a good one, otherwise there are many minorities who would suffer.
-
hehehehehehe
:)
-
hehehehehehe
Thanks OzmO, for your continued support! :)
-
You're proving the point aren't you? You fear that your right to oppress other people is being oppressed.
Who am I oppressing, Deedee? I neither have nor do I want to have the right to oppress anyone.
What you say is nonsense, and what part of "freedom to practice religion" and separation of Church and State are lost on you? Churches are free to marry or refuse to marry whomever they wish. Some Churches won't marry divorced people, people of mixed faith, people who are mentally handicapped... an Orthodox schul would refuse to perform reform marriages, etc...
See Beach Bum's post above.
The whole thing is more or less about homophobia and fear of secularization. At least, be an honest christian. ;)
I'm sure it is in many cases. Why do you keep directing this at me, Deedee? Who says I'm homophobic? Who says I oppose same sex marriage? You generalize and stereotype way too much.
-
Calm down loco, you quoted me and asked a question. I answered. I don't direct anything at you alone, personally, oh persecuted one! ;)
Beach's article doesn't mention one single case of litigation against any Church. That was your fear wasn't it?
If your concern is that businesses and the state are compelled to serve people then that's another matter.
-
Thanks OzmO, for your continued support! :)
Are you mad becuase i thought that was a funny statement?
Is that where you sarcasm is coming from?
-
Nice try Beach! Where is there one litigation regarding actual marriage in that article?
Businesses cannot discriminate. That's the law. And it's a good one, otherwise there are many minorities who would suffer.
Actually businesses can discriminate if they are religious entities.
Nice try about what? I posted the story to show there can be conflicts between religious groups and the homosexual lobby.
I just read a story about a wedding issue the other day. I'll try and find it.
-
Are you mad becuase i thought that was a funny statement?
Is that where you sarcasm is coming from?
Mad? No, I'm not mad. ;D
How have you been OzmO?
-
Mad? No, I'm not mad. ;D
How have you been OzmO?
Very Well thank you.
and you?
-
Calm down loco, you quoted me and asked a question. I answered. I don't direct anything at you alone, personally, oh persecuted one! ;)
Oh, okay. For a moment there I thought you were saying I like to oppress others, calling me homophobic, fearful of secularization, and a dishonest Christian. ::)
You're proving the point aren't you? You fear that your right to oppress other people is being oppressed.
The whole thing is more or less about homophobia and fear of secularization. At least, be an honest christian. ;)
You are the one who needs to calm down. :-*
-
Very Well thank you.
and you?
I can't complain! ;D
-
No, I don't particularly believe in marriage counseling and think the money spent on it could be put to better use in a few sessions with a good financial planner. Those types of counsellings are rudimentary and provide an overview that is only of use to the most naive people.
As it exists now (at least, with some churches), that's true. Other churches have stricter, more intensive counseling sessions. Non-religious venues where you can get hitched have none.
No pastor, no matter how modern or hot he is, is going to be teaching anyone the value of tantric pleasures. Those types of counseling usually start and end with "be accommodating of his desires" for her and "be more romantic and sensitive" for him. You can get the same in any self-help book.
You ain't been to some of the marriage conferences that I've attended. ;D .
This thread points out how "soft" the religious right is on adulterers/divorcees and people who engage in every other manner of "sexual immorality" no matter what is written, because it's convenient for heterosexual christians, whereas you're harsh on homosexuals for reasons listed: homophobia, fear of secularization.
As mentioned before, adultery is grounds for divorce. Divorce, however, has become far more frivolous than it was intended to be. Take a wild guess who's responsible for that (Hint: it ain't the religious right).
The case can also be made that the liberal left wants to take virtually every form of sexual perversion and legalize it, hardly surprising as sex and drugs tend to be the only things about which the left is actually liberal.
-
"I agree with that Sen. Sanatorium, who says if we let this stuff go too far, pretty soon we'll be fucking dogs."
-
Nice try Beach! Where is there one litigation regarding actual marriage in that article?
Businesses cannot discriminate. That's the law. And it's a good one, otherwise there are many minorities who would suffer.
Not surprised that we don't see cases involving homosexual marriages in conflict with religious organizations, because the only state that allowed those marriages was Massachusetts till about a week or so ago.
The case I was thinking about is in the article:
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
-
"I agree with that Sen. Sanatorium, who says if we let this stuff go too far, pretty soon we'll be fucking dogs."
Quote from Tony Soprano. Hilarious.
-
Who the fuck wants to get married anyway?!
-
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
Good Stuff - Civil liberties and equal treatment trump discrimination and bigotry
-
Court tosses Fla. statute banning Bible distribution on public sidewalk - 6.19.08
A federal court Wednesday ruled in favor of attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and permanently struck down sections of a state statute used to bar a member of Gideons International from distributing Bibles on a public sidewalk. The court determined that the statute under which Thomas Gray was threatened with arrest was “constitutionally vague” in violation of the 14th Amendment. read more...
1st Circuit: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is constitutional - 6.9.08
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled Monday that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexual behavior does not violate the U.S. Constitution. As argued in a friend-of-the-court brief funded by the Alliance Defense Fund and filed by the National Legal Foundation, the court determined that the policy is constitutional because it is based upon important considerations of military life, not irrational fears or prejudices. read more...
Alaska Supreme Court issues order to keep patient alive - 6.3.08
The Alaska Supreme Court granted an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney’s motion for stay and signed an order Friday that will keep Providence Hospital from removing a woman’s life-support tubes. Ending her life support could result in her death within minutes or days. read more...
Florida man fails to have wife’s feeding tube removed - 6.2.08
A state judge has signed an order, requested by an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney, to appoint a committee that will make recommendations on the health of Karen Weber. Weber is a stroke victim whose husband wants to have her feeding tube removed even though his wife made clear that she doesn’t desire to go to hospice and has communicated with family and friends. read more...
Wisconsin marriage amendment upheld - 5.30.08
A Wisconsin court threw out a challenge to the state’s marriage amendment Friday, ruling that the amendment does not violate state law. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys had filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing for the constitutionality of the amendment. read more...
ACLU fails to silence religious expression in Wilson County schools - 5.30.08
A court order issued Thursday fell short of granting the American Civil Liberties Union what it was seeking in its lawsuit against the Wilson County School System, according to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund. read more...
Wash. school district agrees to respect student prayer meetings - 5.29.08
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys have obtained a favorable settlement for a Christian student who filed suit against the East Valley School District. The settlement acknowledges the student’s constitutional right to meet on campus for religious purposes during non-instructional time. School officials initially prohibited her from meeting with other schoolmates for prayer, discussion, and fasting in a room regularly open for other student-organized gatherings. read more...
Pa. court reverses decision against midwife for helping Amish woman - 5.28.08
A Pennsylvania appeals court has reversed a State Board of Medicine ruling against a midwife who had been fined and ordered to cease practicing after she assisted an Amish woman during childbirth. ADF attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the woman last year, arguing that a state board wrongly interpreted statutes so as to outlaw the practice of lay midwifery, a practice relied upon by many religious communities in the commonwealth, including the Amish. read more...
6th Circuit upholds protections for Grand Rapids citizens against sex shops - 5.27.08
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ruled that an ordinance restricting sexually-oriented businesses is constitutional, upholding a lower court’s decision in the case. An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney represents a group of local citizens wishing to protect their families from the harmful secondary effects of such businesses. read more...
ADF: Sharing religious views on public sidewalk is not a crime - 5.23.08
An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney has secured a settlement with city of Beaumont officials that will result in changes to an ordinance that violates the First Amendment rights of citizens wishing to publicly express their views. Under the old ordinance, two men were arrested and charged for sharing their religious views on a public sidewalk. read more...
Court affirms will of Oregon voters: marriage amendment constitutional - 5.22.08
An Oregon appeals court ruled Wednesday that Measure 36, the state’s constitutional amendment affirming marriage as the union between one man and one woman, is constitutional. The Alliance Defense Fund provided funding to allied attorney Kelly Clark, who defended the amendment before the court on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Coalition. read more...
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/actions/victories/Default.aspx
-
Court tosses Fla. statute banning Bible distribution on public sidewalk - 6.19.08
A federal court Wednesday ruled in favor of attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and permanently struck down sections of a state statute used to bar a member of Gideons International from distributing Bibles on a public sidewalk. The court determined that the statute under which Thomas Gray was threatened with arrest was “constitutionally vague” in violation of the 14th Amendment. read more...
1st Circuit: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is constitutional - 6.9.08
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled Monday that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexual behavior does not violate the U.S. Constitution. As argued in a friend-of-the-court brief funded by the Alliance Defense Fund and filed by the National Legal Foundation, the court determined that the policy is constitutional because it is based upon important considerations of military life, not irrational fears or prejudices. read more...
Alaska Supreme Court issues order to keep patient alive - 6.3.08
The Alaska Supreme Court granted an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney’s motion for stay and signed an order Friday that will keep Providence Hospital from removing a woman’s life-support tubes. Ending her life support could result in her death within minutes or days. read more...
Florida man fails to have wife’s feeding tube removed - 6.2.08
A state judge has signed an order, requested by an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney, to appoint a committee that will make recommendations on the health of Karen Weber. Weber is a stroke victim whose husband wants to have her feeding tube removed even though his wife made clear that she doesn’t desire to go to hospice and has communicated with family and friends. read more...
Wisconsin marriage amendment upheld - 5.30.08
A Wisconsin court threw out a challenge to the state’s marriage amendment Friday, ruling that the amendment does not violate state law. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys had filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing for the constitutionality of the amendment. read more...
ACLU fails to silence religious expression in Wilson County schools - 5.30.08
A court order issued Thursday fell short of granting the American Civil Liberties Union what it was seeking in its lawsuit against the Wilson County School System, according to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund. read more...
Wash. school district agrees to respect student prayer meetings - 5.29.08
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys have obtained a favorable settlement for a Christian student who filed suit against the East Valley School District. The settlement acknowledges the student’s constitutional right to meet on campus for religious purposes during non-instructional time. School officials initially prohibited her from meeting with other schoolmates for prayer, discussion, and fasting in a room regularly open for other student-organized gatherings. read more...
Pa. court reverses decision against midwife for helping Amish woman - 5.28.08
A Pennsylvania appeals court has reversed a State Board of Medicine ruling against a midwife who had been fined and ordered to cease practicing after she assisted an Amish woman during childbirth. ADF attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the woman last year, arguing that a state board wrongly interpreted statutes so as to outlaw the practice of lay midwifery, a practice relied upon by many religious communities in the commonwealth, including the Amish. read more...
6th Circuit upholds protections for Grand Rapids citizens against sex shops - 5.27.08
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ruled that an ordinance restricting sexually-oriented businesses is constitutional, upholding a lower court’s decision in the case. An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney represents a group of local citizens wishing to protect their families from the harmful secondary effects of such businesses. read more...
ADF: Sharing religious views on public sidewalk is not a crime - 5.23.08
An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney has secured a settlement with city of Beaumont officials that will result in changes to an ordinance that violates the First Amendment rights of citizens wishing to publicly express their views. Under the old ordinance, two men were arrested and charged for sharing their religious views on a public sidewalk. read more...
Court affirms will of Oregon voters: marriage amendment constitutional - 5.22.08
An Oregon appeals court ruled Wednesday that Measure 36, the state’s constitutional amendment affirming marriage as the union between one man and one woman, is constitutional. The Alliance Defense Fund provided funding to allied attorney Kelly Clark, who defended the amendment before the court on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Coalition. read more...
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/actions/victories/Default.aspx
::)
-
Not surprised that we don't see cases involving homosexual marriages in conflict with religious organizations, because the only state that allowed those marriages was Massachusetts till about a week or so ago.
The case I was thinking about is in the article:
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Again, this is not a case where a member of the clergy was forced to perform a marriage that would compromise his/her beliefs. Got any cases involving Protestants suing Catholic churches, or anything of that nature? Those would be better analogies.
-
Again, this is not a case where a member of the clergy was forced to perform a marriage that would compromise his/her beliefs. Got any cases involving Protestants suing Catholic churches, or anything of that nature? Those would be better analogies.
Give it some time. The men in black only recently legalized homosexual marriage in Massachusetts and California.
We are really witnessing a sea change. The "gender identity" issue is cementing itself in our state laws. That could be a mess.
-
As it exists now (at least, with some churches), that's true. Other churches have stricter, more intensive counseling sessions. Non-religious venues where you can get hitched have none.
You ain't been to some of the marriage conferences that I've attended. ;D .
As mentioned before, adultery is grounds for divorce. Divorce, however, has become far more frivolous than it was intended to be. Take a wild guess who's responsible for that (Hint: it ain't the religious right).
The case can also be made that the liberal left wants to take virtually every form of sexual perversion and legalize it, hardly surprising as sex and drugs tend to be the only things about which the left is actually liberal.
I'm sure there are some very interesting Christian conferences, :) but obviously you attended yours after you were married, not leading up to it.
I'm referring to divorce as Jesus defined it.. with "just-cause" being a very thin list. Accordingly, anyone who divorces outside the list is an adulterer, and anyone who marries such a person is also an adulterer. Adultery is one of the Big Ten no-nos whereas homosexuality isn't mentioned at all. Yet Churches are filled with all manner of adulterers, yet doesn't seem to warrant a blip, whereas homosexuality seems to bring people out in savage droves. Why is that? Because it's convenient and hypocritical. :)
As far as where the fault for frivolous divorce lies... am I going to blame my heathen neighbor if I decide to murder someone, or steal something as well? No one forces anyone to sin.
Btw... you sound kind of liberal with your coddling counseling measures for would-be frivolous divorcees. You should throw the book at them! :)
-
Give it some time. The men in black only recently legalized homosexual marriage in Massachusetts and California.
We are really witnessing a sea change. The "gender identity" issue is cementing itself in our state laws. That could be a mess.
Don't live in fear Beach. Enjoy your life, and let others enjoy theirs.
-
Don't live in fear Beach. Enjoy your life, and let others enjoy theirs.
Who is living in fear? I love my life. I hope everyone can find happiness too. This is a great country.
-
Who is living in fear? I love my life. I hope everyone can find happiness too. This is a great country.
What do you think two people who are in love and want to get married are trying to do?
::) ::)
-
What do you think two people who are in love and want to get married are trying to do?
::) ::)
::) The same thing three people who are in love and want to get married are trying to do.
-
Don't live in fear Beach. Enjoy your life, and let others enjoy theirs.
Beach Bum believes in talking snakes; when someone believes in such idiocy, is it any wonder they he can't let others be?
-
::) The same thing three people who are in love and want to get married are trying to do.
so what - I thought you said you wanted people to be happy?
How does 3 people who want to get married affect you in any way?
-
so what - I thought you said you wanted people to be happy?
How does 3 people who want to get married affect you in any way?
Yes, as I said, I want everyone to be happy.
People in an illegal polygamous marriage don't affect me. Neither does a person who wants to marry a dog. But society has said it does not approve. We don't always pass laws based on whether the conduct affects everyone. We set standards and uphold them.
-
What gives a church (or religion) the authority to define marriage?
You don't need to get married in a church in order to have a valid marriage so why do we even pretend that any the opinion of any church or religion even matters.
If you want to join that religion and follow it's rule then fine
If you're not a member of that religion then their opinion on you, your actions, etc... are irrelevent.
-
The state defines marriage.
-
Yes, as I said, I want everyone to be happy.
People in an illegal polygamous marriage don't affect me. Neither does a person who wants to marry a dog. But society has said it does not approve. We don't always pass laws based on whether the conduct affects everyone. We set standards and uphold them.
yeah and eventually those standards evolve to eliminate bigotry as recently happened in California with same sex marriage
It wasn't too long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal and that was somehow considered an "acceptable standard" too.
-
yeah and eventually those standards evolve to eliminate bigotry as recently happened in California with same sex marriage
It wasn't too long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal and that was somehow considered an "acceptable standard" too.
Race is not in the same universe with homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestites, and transsexuals. It is absolutely absurd for people to call those opposed to lifestyle choices bigots. ::)
-
Race is not in the same universe with homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestites, and transsexuals. It is absolutely absurd for people to call those opposed to lifestyle choices bigots. ::)
once again - absolutely no proof of choice
but - even if it were it's irrelevent because homosexuals have equal protection under the law and as you've pointed out - marriage is defined by the state therefore religious objections and logically flawed arguments of "choice" are irrelevent.
I have given some more thought recently as to why people such as yourself cling to the logically absurd claim that sexuality is a choice.
I think it's because there are so many repressed gay christians who are trying so hard to choose to be straight that they've convinced themself that being gay must also be a choice.
You know what I'm talking about right?
I mean guys like this
-
I am on the fence about gay marriage. I am all for equal human rights for all, and hate discrimination in all forms, but it opens up a can of worms imo. The legalities alone...so can I, as a straight chick, 'marry' my best friend just to get her citizenship? Marriage of conveniences I think would be more common...that said marriage in general is a mess, that's the truth. The meaning "till death to us part" has been replaced by many till "to divorce do us part". Vows are meaningless to many, stats show that, so those crying about it ruins the sanctity of marriage, um - thats done anyway really.
-
I am on the fence about gay marriage. I am all for equal human rights for all, and hate discrimination in all forms, but it opens up a can of worms imo. The legalities alone...so can I, as a straight chick, 'marry' my best friend just to get her citizenship? Marriage of conveniences I think would be more common...that said marriage in general is a mess, that's the truth. The meaning "till death to us part" has been replaced by many till "to divorce do us part". Vows are meaningless to many, stats show that, so those crying about it ruins the sanctity of marriage, um - thats done anyway really.
isn't it illegal to get married soley for the purpose of obtaining citizenship?
-
once again - absolutely no proof of choice
but - even if it were it's irrelevent because homosexuals have equal protection under the law and as you've pointed out - marriage is defined by the state therefore religious objections and logically flawed arguments of "choice" are irrelevent.
I have given some more thought recently as to why people such as yourself cling to the logically absurd claim that sexuality is a choice.
I think it's because there are so many repressed gay christians who are trying so hard to choose to be straight that they've convinced themself that being gay must also be a choice.
You know what I'm talking about right?
I mean guys like this
[Gasp] A Christian hypocrite. Go figure. There are plenty of them, just as there are secular, atheist, Muslim, etc. hypocrites.
Objection to homosexual marriage comes from far more than "religious" people. The votes on this issue are overwhelming. The contention that objection to homosexual marriage is confined to Christians, Republicans, and/or conservatives is factually incorrect.
In any event, Christians have just as much right as anyone else to voice their views--religious based or not--at the ballot box. If you or anyone else disagrees with their viewpoint, then go vote.
-
isn't it illegal to get married soley for the purpose of obtaining citizenship?
Yes, but don't people do it? Like all the time?
[don't mean to sound snide btw, for some reason can't think of a way to say it 'unsnidely']
-
[Gasp] A Christian hypocrite. Go figure. There are plenty of them, just as there are secular, atheist, Muslim, etc. hypocrites.
Objection to homosexual marriage comes from far more than "religious" people. The votes on this issue are overwhelming. The contention that objection to homosexual marriage is confined to Christians, Republicans, and/or conservatives is factually incorrect.
In any event, Christians have just as much right as anyone else to voice their views--religious based or not--at the ballot box. If you or anyone else disagrees with their viewpoint, then go vote.
I don't recall saying objection to gay marriage was strictly the confined to Christians, Republicans, etc... There are many different paths to bigotry and they are all based on the individuals personal objection to the free will to the actions of two consenting adults
The "go vote" argument is interesting diversion
Are you saying that as long as the majority agrees on something that it must be right and just? (not suggesting you are - just asking)
-
Yes, but don't people do it? Like all the time?
[don't mean to sound snide btw, for some reason can't think of a way to say it 'unsnidely']
I'm sure "they" do but isn't it still illegal (though like anything else that is a crime you must get caught)
-
I don't recall saying objection to gay marriage was strictly the confined to Christians, Republicans, etc... There are many different paths to bigotry and they are all based on the individuals personal objection to the free will to the actions of two consenting adults
The "go vote" argument is interesting diversion
Are you saying that as long as the majority agrees on something that it must be right and just? (not suggesting you are - just asking)
Are people who oppose polygamy bigots?
That's how we operate: majority (or super majority) rules. If you don't like something, pass a law. If you want something, pass a law. If it involves a "fundamental right," amend the state or U.S. Constitution.
We regulate lifestyle choices by popular vote all the time.
-
Are people who oppose polygamy bigots? - I've never thought about it but if their only opposition was based on an objection about the definition of marriage and therefore some perceived insult to the objectors religious belief... then I'd say YES... but one thing at a time. I'd also say stop conflating the marriage of two people with anything but that. Gay marriage is not polygamy, it's not people marrying animals or inanimate objects,etc.....
That's how we operate: majority (or super majority) rules. If you don't like something, pass a law. If you want something, pass a law. If it involves a "fundamental right," amend the state or U.S. Constitution - I'm sure you would agree that there is no mention of marriage in the consitution and also that the authors were surely aware of the concept and rigours of marriage and also very aware of religion, morals, whatever you want to call it, etc...
and yes, I know how it works. I asked you if you thought passing a law made something just or right or does that not even matter i.e. some stuff is "right" until it's voted :wrong" and vice versa.
We regulate lifestyle choices by popular vote all the time. ok - can you show me some examples that are germane to the topic which I assume is gays who want to be treated as equal to you and want to get married
- [/size]
-
Not every law is "right," but it's still the law. If you disagree with it, then work to change it.
-
Not every law is "right," but it's still the law. If you disagree with it, then work to change it.
no joke
what law are we talking about?"
-
I'm referring to divorce as Jesus defined it.. with "just-cause" being a very thin list. Accordingly, anyone who divorces outside the list is an adulterer, and anyone who marries such a person is also an adulterer. Adultery is one of the Big Ten no-nos whereas homosexuality isn't mentioned at all. Yet Churches are filled with all manner of adulterers, yet doesn't seem to warrant a blip, whereas homosexuality seems to bring people out in savage droves. Why is that? Because it's convenient and hypocritical. :)
Deedee, you are right. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he did mention adultery. And Jesus did say that if a person divorces and re-marries, that person and the person he/she marries commit adultery, something that many Christians do over and over without any guilt. Many Christian ministers would refuse to marry a same sex couple, but some of those same ministers would not refuse to marry couples where one or both have been divorced before, thus these ministers are helping these couples commit adultery by Jesus' definition.
Homosexuality, as you said, is not addressed specifically within the 10 commandments, but adultery is.
Yes, I agree with you Deedee! We Christians can be very hypocritical sometimes. I agree with Straw Man too, that those Christians who put so much time and energy into opposing same sex marriage, should put just as much, if not more time and energy into getting divorce banned, at least within the Christian church. Or they should at least show more opposition to Christian ministers marrying couples who have been divorced, since Biblically that is a sin. I'm no fan of the Roman Catholic Church, but they do a much better job at opposing divorce and re-marriage of divorced couples than we Protestants do.
-
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he did mention adultery. And Jesus did say that if a person divorces and re-marries, that person and the person he/she marries commit adultery, something that many Christians do over and over without any guilt.
Homosexuality, as you said, is not addressed specifically within the 10 commandments, but adultery is.
Exactly.
Many "Christians" go around fornicating, getting divorced but act like they are somehow not sinning.
Amuses me how people disregard the 10 commandments for themself, then use the bible to 'cast a stone' at someone else.
-
Loco,
What are you thoughts on Dobson's advice on how to treat and prevent gayness in young boys. Do you think it makes sense?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=221415.0
-
Deedee, you are right. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he did mention adultery. And Jesus did say that if a person divorces and re-marries, that person and the person he/she marries commit adultery, something that many Christians do over and over without any guilt. Many Christian ministers would refuse to marry a same sex couple, but some of those same ministers would not refuse to marry couples where one or both have been divorced before, thus these ministers are helping these couples commit adultery by Jesus' definition.
Homosexuality, as you said, is not addressed specifically within the 10 commandments, but adultery is.
Yes, I agree with you Deedee! We Christians can be very hypocritical sometimes. I agree with Straw Man too, that those Christians who put so much time and energy into opposing same sex marriage, should put just as much, if not more time and energy into getting divorce banned, at least within the Christian church. Or they should at least show more opposition to Christian ministers marrying couples who have been divorced, since Biblically that is a sin. I'm no fan of the Roman Catholic Church, but they do a much better job at opposing divorce and re-marriage of divorced couples than we Protestants do.
Maybe this is more appropriate for the religion board, but I've had a number of discussions about this. Even my wife and I disagree over this interpretation. She takes the literal view (divorce only in cases of adultery). I take what I see as the commonsense view that there are other grounds for divorce, including things like abuse. I can't imagine a woman who is being abused by her husband is required to stay in the marriage and/or remain single if she divorces her abusive husband.
-
Maybe this is more appropriate for the religion board, but I've had a number of discussions about this. Even my wife and I disagree over this interpretation. She takes the literal view (divorce only in cases of adultery). I take what I see as the commonsense view that there are other grounds for divorce, including things like abuse. I can't imagine a woman who is being abused by her husband is required to stay in the marriage and/or remain single if she divorces her abusive husband.
I started this thread on the politics board because I was attempting to make an ironic statement about the real danger to marriage....in contrast to the fake danger of gay weddings.
As usual - many religious types don't get irony and assumed my suggestion was serious.
Here's another literal and theologically "sound" point of view of spousal abuse:
"One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband's God-given authority, a Southern Baptist scholar said Sunday in a Texas church.
Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said women desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin.
"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged--or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches," Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas.
http://ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10675
-
As usual - many religious types don't get irony and assumed my suggestion was serious.
I do get the irony of your suggestion, but I do agree with it even though you don't mean it.
-
I do get the irony of your post, but I do agree with your idea even though you don't mean it.
yeah - I actually find you to be one of the more thoughtful and introspective of the religious types on this board. I don't agree with you very much but I can see that you make an effort to look at all sides
-
yeah - I actually find you to be one of the more thoughtful and introspective of the religious types on this board. I don't agree with you very much but I can see that you make an effort to look at all sides
I'm only trying to stick to the Bible, no matter what religious leaders and politicians may say, and I try to be consistent about this. When people like you or Deedee, here or elsewhere, try to point out to me where I am being inconsistent about this, I listen. Sometimes you may be right, while other times you may be wrong. But the reason we disagree on most things is because I believe in the Bible and you don't.
-
I'm only trying to stick to the Bible, no matter what religious leaders and politicians may say, and I try to be consistent about this. When people like you or Deedee, here or elsewhere, try to point out to me where I am being inconsistent about this, I listen. Sometimes you may be right, while other times you may be wrong. But the reason we disagree on most things is because I believe in the Bible and you don't.
this is true
also, you attempt to "stick to the bible" is doomed because it's full of contradictions and also just some plain old crazy stuff. If you followed the bible literally you would be in jail
-
this is true
also, you attempt to "stick to the bible" is doomed because it's full of contradictions and also just some plain old crazy stuff. If you followed the bible literally you would be in jail
And this is where you and I disagree big time, but this is beyond the scope of this thread and this board.
-
fair enough - but you have to admit if you followed the bible literally - you would be in jail.
-
fair enough - but you have to admit if you followed the bible literally - you would be in jail.
I disagree and I believe you are mistaken. You are probably taking things out of context, but you can try to prove me wrong. I read and study the Bible daily, and I've yet to find something the Bible tells me to do which goes against current Venezuelan law, or current US law for that matter. Now, if I were in the former Cuba, Russia or China, or if I were in the current Saudi Arabia or Iran, then I'd be in death row by now. What the Bible tells me is to do good to other people and to do evil to nobody, but again, we should take this to the religion board.
-
I disagree and I believe you are mistaken. You are probably taking things out of context, but you can try to prove me wrong. I read and study the Bible daily, and I've yet to find something the Bible tells me to do which goes against current Venezuelan law, or current US law for that matter. Now, if I were in the former Cuba, Russia or China, or if I were in the current Saudi Arabia or Iran, then I'd be in death row by now. What the Bible tells me is to do good to other people and to do evil to nobody, but again, we should take this to the religion board.
have you participated in the stoning of any non-virgin women recently?
-
have you participated in the stoning of any non-virgin women recently?
No. There are many married women who are no longer virgins. Why would I stone them? Wanna take this to the religion board?
-
No. There are many married women who are no longer virgins. Why would I stone them? Wanna take this to the religion board?
not really because: 1. I don't have the time for semantic gymnastics and 2. I just don't care
Here's the section (which I'm sure you've already seen before and probably have a great reason why it's not to be taken literally)
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
-
not really because: 1. I don't have the time for semantic gymnastics and 2. I just don't care
If you don't have the time to discuss religion on the religion board and if you don't care about my response to your post, then why do you keep discussing religion with me on the politics board and why do you keep posting religious question for me on the politics board?
-
If you don't have the time to discuss religion on the religion board and if you don't care about my response to your post, then why do you keep discussing religion with me on the politics board and why do you keep posting religious question for me on the politics board?
I'm trying not to.
This thread was meant to show the absurdity of the charge that gay marriage was a threat to heterosexual marriage.
I do recommend that you start a movement to ban divorce among Christians.
No one has really taken that on and you could be the first. Maybe you can even be like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc.... and find a way to turn it into a business.
BTW - I would like to hear your opinion on Dobson's belief that he can treat and prevent gayness in young boys by flashing his junk at them in the shower.
Do you think that's a good idea?
-
I'm trying not to.
This thread was meant to show the absurdity of the charge that gay marriage was a threat to heterosexual marriage.
I do recommend that you start a movement to ban divorce among Christians.
No one has really taken that on and you could be the first. Maybe you can even be like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc.... and find a way to turn it into a business.
Things are different in Venezuela as far as divorce goes, and I'm not an American that I should do what you suggest in the US. Venezuela is 99% Roman Catholic and divorce is not as accepted and as common as it is in other countries. Legally, it is also much harder, costly and difficult to get divorced in Venezuela. My family, on both my dad's and my mom's side is practically divorce free.
Why would I want to turn it into a business?
BTW - I would like to hear your opinion on Dobson's belief that he can treat and prevent gayness in young boys by flashing his junk at them in the shower.
Do you think that's a good idea?
If it means that much to you, I'll read up on this Dobson guy when I get a chance and I'll give you my opinion.
-
Things are different in Venezuela as far as divorce goes, and I'm not an American that I should do what you suggest in the US. Venezuela is 99% Roman Catholic and divorce is not as accepted and as common as it is in other countries. Legally, it is also much harder, costly and difficult to get divorced in Venezuela. My family, on both my dad's and my mom's side is practically divorce free.
Why would I want to turn it into a business?
If it means that much to you, I'll read up on this Dobson guy when I get a chance and I'll give you my opinion.
Once again - I was joking about the business thing.
Here's the link to Dobson advise on prevention and "treating" gayness in children.
I have a LOT of questions but as of yet I can't get any of the other religious people on this board to pitch in and help me understand it. Personally, I found this advice to be truly creepy and disturbing but I'm open to listening to other points of view
LINK: http://www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000264.cfm
"Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."
-
Venezuela is 99% Roman Catholic and divorce is not as accepted and as common as it is in other countries. Legally, it is also much harder, costly and difficult to get divorced in Venezuela. My family, on both my dad's and my mom's side is practically divorce free.
Same here, divorce is expensive and hard to obtain, there is a 5 year waiting period after filing - unless the spouse is totally abusive or something. I am not actually aware of anyone in my family is who is divorced, perhaps a distant cousin I don't know is maybe. People always say divorce is so common, but it defintely depends on the culture one is from.
People like Dobson should throw less stones, do less perv/pedo flashing and work at more positive re-inforcment of actual 'family values' IMO.
-
Awesome! ;D
-
If you don't have the time to discuss religion on the religion board and if you don't care about my response to your post, then why do you keep discussing religion with me on the politics board and why do you keep posting religious question for me on the politics board?
I'm not sure either, but he thinks you are mentally ill. :)
I never debate religion and I've never post on the religion board (I've only looked at it once or twice)
In my opinion it's pointless to debate with someone who holds a position without evidence or in contrary to evidence.
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
-
If you don't have the time to discuss religion on the religion board and if you don't care about my response to your post, then why do you keep discussing religion with me on the politics board and why do you keep posting religious question for me on the politics board?
I'm not sure either, but he thinks you are mentally ill. :)
Beach Bigot - here's the difference between you and me. Loco asked why I keep discussing religion and I actually responded to his question rather than avoiding it. I pointed out that this thread was NOT about religion but rather about the absurdity of religious kooks who think that gay marriage is somehow a threat to heterosexual marriage. I did find it humorous that Loco took my joke as a serious suggestion .....even after I told him it was a joke.
And thank you for finding that quote of mine. I will re-affirm that quote and say that I think many people from many different religions take their beliefs to such extremes that they qualify in my book as mentally ill. A perfect example would be that Super Christian Fred Phelps. Would you not agree that he's not quite right in the head? In your case I think you're just a plain old American Dumb Fuck or maybe just someone who chooses to remain willfully ignorant in order to justify your many prejudices.
I'm still waiting for you to man up and defend your hero Dobson and, even better (by far) admit that his advice for degaying your kid is just stupid and creepy .
Your silence on the subject makes me think that you agree with that nutbag and if that's the case they you are probably mentally ill.
He's wrong. Dobson is right. :)
Bum - Here's more Right Stuff from Dobson
Right??
"Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."
LINK: http://www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000264.cfm
-
I'm not sure either, but he thinks you are mentally ill. :)
Quote from: Straw Man on April 22, 2007, 10:24:00 AM
I never debate religion and I've never post on the religion board (I've only looked at it once or twice)
In my opinion it's pointless to debate with someone who holds a position without evidence or in contrary to evidence.
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
Wow, Straw Man, you have come a long way since then. You never debate religion? You never post on the religion board? You are all over the religion board now, and you even bring your religious discussions now into the politics board. That's cool. What made you change?
Do you still think that I am "mentally ill (for real)", or has your opinion on this changed too? If you still think so, that's cool. I am "loco" after all. But I just wonder why you continue to ask mentally ill me religious questions on here and why you seek the opinion of a mentally ill person. That's insane, isn't it?
By they way, once again, I did not agree with your "joke" of an idea, "A constitutional amendment outlawing DIVORCE". What I did agree with you on is, as I said, that those Christians who put so much time and energy into opposing same sex marriage, should put just as much, if not more time and energy into getting divorce banned within their churches. Or they should at least show more opposition to Christian ministers marrying couples who have been divorced, since Biblically that is a sin.
I still have not read up on this Dobson guy, but you keep posting the same Dobson quote over and over again. Do I have to read a whole lot about him or is this the only thing he said that bothers you? If so, I'll go ahead and tell you that my father never did nor did he want to show me or show any of my brothers his genitals and we are glad that he didn't, and all my brothers and I turned out heterosexual anyway. I do not have kids, but if I ever do have kids, I do not plan on showing them my genitals either.
I am not a doctor and I have really not paid much attention to this, but I do not know if a person's desire for the same gender can be cured. Maybe it can for some people if that's what they really want. I mean, if a man can gradually go from being attracted to women to being attracted to men, I suppose it is possible for a man to gradually go from being attracted to men to being attracted to women.
Going by the Bible, attraction to the same gender in itself is not a sin, but the act of having sex with the same gender is a sin. So a heterosexual man who has sex with another man commits the sin of homosexuality even though he himself is heterosexual. On the other hand, a man who is attracted to men yet never has sex with another man has not committed the sin of homosexuality even though he is attracted to men. Likewise, I am attracted to women, but I am not an adulterer or a fornicator until I actually have sex with a woman who is not my wife.
-
Wow, Straw Man, you have come a long way since then. You never debate religion? You never post on the religion board? You are all over the religion board now, and you even bring your religious discussions now into the politics board. That's cool. What made you change? Do you still think that I am "mentally ill (for real)", or has your opinion on this changed too? If you still think so, that's cool. I am "loco" after all. But I just wonder why you continue to ask mentally ill me religious questions on here and why you seek the opinion of a mentally ill person. Isn't that insane, isn't it?
By they way, once again, I did not agree with your "joke" of an idea, "A constitutional amendment outlawing DIVORCE". What I did agree with you on is, as I said, that those Christians who put so much time and energy into opposing same sex marriage, should put just as much, if not more time and energy into getting divorce banned within their churches. Or they should at least show more opposition to Christian ministers marrying couples who have been divorced, since Biblically that is a sin.
I still have not read up on this Dobson guy, but you keep posting the same Dobson quote over and over again. Do I have to read a whole lot about him or is this the only thing he said that bothers you? If so, I'll go ahead and tell you that my father never did nor did he want to show me or show any of my brothers his genitals and we are glad that he didn't, and all my brothers and I turned out heterosexual anyway. I do not have kids, but if I ever do have kids, I do not plan on showing them my genitals either.
I am not a doctor and I have really not paid much attention to this, but I do not know if a person's desire for the same gender can be cured. Maybe it can for some people if that's what they really want. I mean, if a man can gradually go from being attracted to women to being attracted to men, I suppose it is possible for a man to gradually go from being attracted to men to being attracted to women.
Going by the Bible, attraction to the same gender in itself is not a sin, but the act of having sex with the same gender is a sin. So a heterosexual man who has sex with another man commits the sin of homosexuality even though he himself is heterosexual. On the other hand, a man who is attracted to men yet never has sex with another man has not committed the sin of homosexuality even though he is attracted to men. Likewise, I am attracted to women, but I am not an adulterer or a fornicator until I actually have sex with a woman who is not my wife.
Loco - I'm hardly "all over" the religion board. I'll post there occassionally but I don't think you'll see me in any long drawn out debates.
I dont' think marriage is a religious issue.
I also never said you specifcally were mentally ill
I'm posting the Dobson quote for Beach Bigot not for you.
-
I started this thread on the politics board because I was attempting to make an ironic statement about the real danger to marriage....in contrast to the fake danger of gay weddings.
As usual - many religious types don't get irony and assumed my suggestion was serious.
Says the person who admits irony is lost on him (or her).
sorry, sometimes I have a hard time picking up on irony in written form (seriously), and especially late at night.
-
Loco - I'm hardly "all over" the religion board. I'll post there occassionally but I don't think you'll see me in any long drawn out debates.
I dont' think marriage is a religious issue.
I also never said you specifcally were mentally ill
I'm posting the Dobson quote for Beach Bigot not for you.
Once again, contradicting himself (or herself) in the same thread.
Loco,
What are you thoughts on Dobson's advice on how to treat and prevent gayness in young boys. Do you think it makes sense?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=221415.0
-
Here is a thread from over a year ago where Straw "Man" obsessed over penis talk. I am starting to think he is obsessed. Or a homosexual. Not that it matters. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133050.0
-
Once again, contradicting himself (or herself) in the same thread.
the question was orginally for you - something you know quite well.
hard to notice that you still AVOID the question.
I guess we can assume that you're in full agreement with Dobson that exposing yourself to a your son for the sole purpose of having him see your junk will both prevent and treat gayness.
How often do you apply this prescription in your own life???
-
Here is a thread from over a year ago where Straw "Man" obsessed over penis talk. I am starting to think he is obsessed. Or a homosexual. Not that it matters. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133050.0
The only person here is obsessed with cock is Dobson and I guess you since you're unwilling to admit that his advice is sick. One can only assume you agree with him.
-
Here is a thread from over a year ago where Straw "Man" obsessed over penis talk. I am starting to think he is obsessed. Or a homosexual. Not that it matters. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133050.0
Hey Bum - this was a good find.
I especially like your post where you deny the very subject of Dobsons article which is called: "Can Homosexuality Be Prevented and Treated".
I'm seriously wondering if you are a moron or, as a I said before willfully ignorant
Okay. I read it. He doesn't say showing your son your penis will prevent homosexuality.
Great read though.
even stranger is your very next post where you agree with Dobson's advise on "Prevention and Treatment"
This time? I read the link with Dr. Dobson's discussion of homosexuality and his analysis makes sense to me. I'm a big fan of his.
.
.
.
.
.
Let's review - I think Dobson is a sick fuck and probably a closet pederast. You think his analysis on the "prevention and treatment" of homosexuality makes sense and you're a big fan
-
lol . . . Perhaps you should get a picture of a giant penis and hang it in your cubicle? lol. :)
-
Loco - I'm hardly "all over" the religion board. I'll post there occassionally but I don't think you'll see me in any long drawn out debates.
I dont' think marriage is a religious issue.
I also never said you specifcally were mentally ill
I'm posting the Dobson quote for Beach Bigot not for you.
Believe me, Loco is mentally ill.
-
lol . . . Perhaps you should get a picture of a giant penis and hang it in your cubicle? lol. :)
perhaps Dobson sells - maybe you can check for me.
I'll bet Baby Bum really hates shower time with Dad but I'm sure you explain to him that it's only to help him not be gay
-
Believe me, Loco is mentally ill.
Have a great day, Deicide! ;D
-
Believe me, Loco is mentally ill.
How about Bum - do you think he's mentally ill or willfully ignorant bigot?
I'm still not sure
-
Have a great day, Deicide! ;D
They would call you "lolo" in Hawaii. :)
-
How about Bum - do you think he's mentally ill or willfully ignorant bigot?
I'm still not sure
You are asking your fellow skeptic Deicide, who by his own admission is an "anti-Korean bigot". :)
-
They would call you "lolo" in Hawaii. :)
"lolo"? Does that mean crazy? :)
-
"lolo"? Does that mean crazy? :)
Yep.
-
Yep.
"lolo" ;D
-
"lolo" ;D
Something my kids call me often. :D
-
Something my kids call me often. :D
Probably right after a hearty session of pounding square pegs in square holes
-
You are asking your fellow skeptic Deicide, who by his own admission is an "anti-Korean bigot". :)
Walk a mile in my shoes, loon. I don't hate Koreans for their appearance, just their Confucianist culture, which you clearly know nothing about. ::)
I have been spit on, harrassed, ripped off, assaulted, conned out of money....believe me, most Koreans are robotic scum; you come here for 2 years and you see how you do. I am at least a white monkey; I suspect with your darker skin tone you would be tormented to the point of having to leave; happened to a black guy I knew.
-
Walk a mile in my shoes, loon. I don't hate Koreans for their appearance, just their Confucianist culture, which you clearly know nothing about. ::)
I have been spit on, harrassed, ripped off, assaulted, conned out of money....believe me, most Koreans are robotic scum; you come here for 2 years and you see how you do. I am at least a white monkey; I suspect with your darker skin tone you would be tormented to the point of having to leave; happened to a black guy I knew.
Calm down Deicide! I wasn't judging you. I was just making sure Straw Man knows this before asking you if you think Beach Bum is a bigot. :)
I'm sorry that you are having to endure all that crap in Korea. Hang in there, less then two months now, right?
-
This thread has taken a sharp left turn somewhere. It went from sanctity of marriage to penises in the shower and who's crazy. A natural progression. :D
-
Walk a mile in my shoes, loon. I don't hate Koreans for their appearance, just their Confucianist culture, which you clearly know nothing about. ::)
I have been spit on, harrassed, ripped off, assaulted, conned out of money....believe me, most Koreans are robotic scum; you come here for 2 years and you see how you do. I am at least a white monkey; I suspect with your darker skin tone you would be tormented to the point of having to leave; happened to a black guy I knew.
Not argueing with you as I have never set foot in Korea in my life - but my brother has visited there often, spent like 6 months there at one point, and had no issues.
I would think he would stick out wildy for various reasons, one as he sticks out everywhere anyway as he is very, very tall. Perhaps he was in a different area or something - as he said all was well - apart from some stares and confusion after he broke out the fluent Korean.
-
Not argueing with you as I have never set foot in Korea in my life - but my brother has visited there often, spent like 6 months there at one point, and had no issues.
I would think he would stick out wildy for various reasons, one as he sticks out everywhere anyway as he is very, very tall. Perhaps he was in a different area or something - as he said all was well - apart from some stares and confusion after he broke out the fluent Korean.
Was he working in the EFL industry? Whar city was he in? He speaks fluent Korean? How many years did he study it?
-
Was he working in the EFL industry? Whar city was he in? He speaks fluent Korean? How many years did he study it?
No, not working at all. Spent the 6 months there to gain practice, was his purpose. I have zero idea where he was but will check with him. He's been studying it maybe a decade, but seriously for like 3 years or so I guess? Fluent yes, but apparently his accent is totally horrendous, so he has been told lol.
-
Typical afternoon at Beach Bum's House:
featuring Beach Bum and Sonny Bum
BB: Boy you sure can work up a mighty sweat pounding these square pegs into these square holes, eh sonny?
Let's hit the shower
SB: Gee Dad, can I please take a shower by myself this time.
BB: Now look son, we've been over this before. I need to protect your mortal soul by ensuring that you don't turn gay. As you know, I'm a Big Fan of Dr. Dobson and he's advised that the best treatment for prevention of gayness is that we shower together so you can see my penis and notice that it's just like yours ONLY BIGGER
SB: I just don't get it Dad. I don't mind pounding the square pegs in the square holes with you but I don't even understand how this is supposed to work.
BB: It makes perfect sense to me.
SB: You're Lolo
BB: I'm only doing this to save you from eternal suffering in Hell.
SB: Whatever you say Dad. ::) ::)
-
No, not working at all. Spent the 6 months there to gain practice, was his purpose. I have zero idea where he was but will check with him. He's been studying it maybe a decade, but seriously for like 3 years or so I guess? Fluent yes, but apparently his accent is totally horrendous, so he has been told lol.
Well, if you don't work here, Korea can seem tamer. Why on earth would he want to learn a useless language like Korean?
-
Typical afternoon at Beach Bum's House:
featuring Beach Bum and Sonny Bum
BB: Boy you sure can working up a mighty sweat pounding these square pegs into these square hole eh sonny?
Let's hit the shower
SB: Gee Dad, can I please take a shower by myself this time.
BB: Now look son, we've been over this before. I need to protect your mortal soul by ensuring that you don't turn gay.
As you know, I'm a Big Fan of Dr. Dobson and he's adviced that the best treatment for prevention of gayness is that
we shower together so you can see my penis and notice that it's just like yours ONLY BIGGER
SB: I just don't get it Dad. I don't mind pounding the square pegs in the square holes with you but I don't even understand how this is even supposed to work.
BB: It makes perfect sense to me.
SB: You're Lolo
BB: I'm only doing this to save you from eternal suffering in Hell.
SB: Whatever you say Dad. ::) ::)
Haha....
-
Well, if you don't work here, Korea can seem tamer. Why on earth would he want to learn a useless language like Korean?
His wife is Korean-American, and when he attended her family functions he felt a right twit not understanding a word.
-
His wife is Korean-American, and when he attended her family functions he felt a right twit not understanding a word.
Marrying a Korean...a fate worse than the torments of hell... :o
-
This thread has taken a sharp left turn somewhere. It went from sanctity of marriage to penises in the shower and who's crazy. A natural progression. :D
Straw Man created this thread and it was him who took it in this direction. He can hijack his own thread if he wants to I suppose. :)
-
Straw Man created this thread and it was him who took it in this direction. He can hijack his own thread if he wants to I suppose. :)
At least you got to see my micro one act play
that's got to be worth the price of admission
-
I'm sure there are some very interesting Christian conferences, :) but obviously you attended yours after you were married, not leading up to it.
That's not true. Of the multiple conferences I've attended, there was one that I attended twice: once, before I was married and once afterward, both with the woman, who is now my wife.
I'm referring to divorce as Jesus defined it.. with "just-cause" being a very thin list. Accordingly, anyone who divorces outside the list is an adulterer, and anyone who marries such a person is also an adulterer. Adultery is one of the Big Ten no-nos whereas homosexuality isn't mentioned at all. Yet Churches are filled with all manner of adulterers, yet doesn't seem to warrant a blip, whereas homosexuality seems to bring people out in savage droves. Why is that? Because it's convenient and hypocritical. :)
Again, what Jesus did was shore up His stance on the issue, because the Jews adopted the nasty habit of frivously divorcing their wives, leaving them in dire straits. Add to that equation these men were trying to trip up Jesus, to get Him to make a mis-statement against the Law.
As for homosexuality, that falls under the adultery law. After all, adultery is having sex with someone OTHER THAN your spouse. And in all the issue of marriage, a spouse is clearly defined as someone of the OPPOSITE SEX. Again, as stated from Creation (and reiterated by Jesus in the NT), "For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE (not male partner) and the two shall be come one flesh". Plus, the (rather-enjoyable) order was given to "Be fruitful and multiply". Two dudes can't do that; and neither can two girls. When it comes to reproduction, it takes man and woman to get 'er done.
As far as where the fault for frivolous divorce lies... am I going to blame my heathen neighbor if I decide to murder someone, or steal something as well? No one forces anyone to sin.
Btw... you sound kind of liberal with your coddling counseling measures for would-be frivolous divorcees. You should throw the book at them! :)
My view is that counseling should be done to PREVENT this from occuring. You make an informed decision, when buying a car, a house, or investing in stock. Why shouldn't you do the same, when picking a wife/husband?
-
Christie Brinkley is now in divorce court for the 4th time! How do we protect the sacred institution from this kind of abuse? :-[
Brinkley split is newest image-crushing NY divorce
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
NEW YORK (AP) — When the media capital of the world meets a celebrity divorce, it's a breakup made in tabloid heaven. So the city that has hosted the spectacular splits of Woody Allen, Liza Minnelli and Rudolph Giuliani now is feasting on the salacious details of model Christie Brinkley's fourth marital breakup.
"It's a freak show," celebrity divorce lawyer Raoul Felder said Friday of the latest chapter in divorce — New York-style — under the media's microscope.
The collapse of the 10-year union of the former Sports Illustrated swimsuit model and architect Peter Cook is being recounted in slow motion in a Central Islip courtroom on Long Island, not far from the Hamptons home where the couple had lived together.
The first day of a trial settling several million dollars in assets and custody of their children, ages 10 and 13, featured the 49-year-old Cook tearfully recounting a pornography obsession and his affair with an 18-year-old mistress. The mistress also testified...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hhfLe89-XuVDU-ggrOtNmgv_1-9gD91N9UG00
-
Typical afternoon at Beach Bum's House:
featuring Beach Bum and Sonny Bum
BB: Boy you sure can work up a mighty sweat pounding these square pegs into these square holes, eh sonny?
Let's hit the shower
SB: Gee Dad, can I please take a shower by myself this time.
BB: Now look son, we've been over this before. I need to protect your mortal soul by ensuring that you don't turn gay. As you know, I'm a Big Fan of Dr. Dobson and he's advised that the best treatment for prevention of gayness is that we shower together so you can see my penis and notice that it's just like yours ONLY BIGGER
SB: I just don't get it Dad. I don't mind pounding the square pegs in the square holes with you but I don't even understand how this is supposed to work.
BB: It makes perfect sense to me.
SB: You're Lolo
BB: I'm only doing this to save you from eternal suffering in Hell.
SB: Whatever you say Dad. ::) ::)
::)