Author Topic: California and same sex "marriage"  (Read 9586 times)

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #75 on: May 31, 2008, 06:57:13 AM »
It's also possible that Secret Mark is a modern hoax...

But didn't Irenaeus; Eusebius or one of those other early church father bastards write to some bishop explaining the existence of the secret Mark gospel??

Seeing as Christianity is an unenlightened/non-illuminated version of the pagan solar deity mystery religion, I would assume there to be a parallel initiatory tradition (as there was amongst all solar deity mystery religions).

A long history of intra-Christian subterfuge and intrigue would seem to evidence this assumption, see:
-the Cathars/Bogomils and their "Rex Mundi" heresy
-the Irish Church and its Aryan heresy
-the secretive AA (often assumed to mean the Association d'Angels)
-the Jesuits (higher order Jesuits are selected based on IQ, not service)
-the secret Vatican library
-the Mandeans (or Swamp Kurds)
-the Johannite heresy
-the Knights Templar (and their suppression)
-the Saint Malachy prophecies
-the Nag Hammadi Library (and the mysterious "Organisation" who preserved them)
-the Freemasonic tradition
-the P2 Masonic Lodge within the Vatican itself
-the viral "Priory of Sion" mythos (and their mysterious founders "The Ormus")

...suspicious, suspicious.

Seeing as the Christianity viral meme complex is itself subject to its own parasitic meme sub-complexes, we should expect there to be such traditions just as old as Christianity itself... for an example pertinent to the discussion at hand, we could assume that among the earliest Christians there would have been a small group of Gay Christians who would have created a homosexual sub-group within the movement (this may be what lead to the Cappocratian(?) heresy), then it's only one creative writer away from a secret gay gospel.


The Luke

dr.chimps

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28635
  • Chimpus ergo sum
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #76 on: May 31, 2008, 07:37:48 AM »
...I counter well educated believers with the plagiarism argument against the historicity of Jeebus... or illustrate the astrological metaphor for them. Usually pretty upsetting for the true believer, but then again... unthinking sheeple shouldn't be so intolerant of smarter people either.

It's funny when a fervent believer realizes that the atheist they are arguing with understands more about their religion than they do.


The Luke
Ha! Good point. Christopher Hitchens has done just that in the last year while pushing his latest book, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I'm sure you can find some transcripts or podcasts without much trouble: he has made some people with very impressive theological backgrounds look like school children. Almost painful in the way he lances their defences and eviscerates their arguments.  :-\     :D   

The Master

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13786
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #77 on: May 31, 2008, 08:14:49 AM »
The thing I find so strange about the supposed "Christian" opposition to gay marriage is that no one who expounds the biblical interdiction against same sex marriage/intercourse has actually read Leviticus (the book of Jewish Law).

The passage which forbids gay marriage states that "no man shall lay with another man as he would with a woman" ...on pain of death (as per usual).

Firstly, that's a ban on male-male anal sex... we know Jewish peoples had sacred temple priestesses who only performed anal sex even after the adoption of Mosaic Law...  so the sodomy of women seems to be fine with Yahweh.

Secondly, the same passage that supposedly bans homosexuality also bans the eating of shellfish... and also under penalty of death.

Thirdly, God clearly didn't write/inspire these particular passages as they also include a blanket death penalty for any man who accidentally kills another man... seeing as God is presumably the originator of all accidents he either:
-doesn't agree with these prohibitions (or wasn't consulted)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of killing people he doesn't approve of (while also having his subjects murder the innocent patsy of his choosing)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of framing people he doesn't approve of for the death penalty (while sacrificing an innocent pawn of his choosing)

Similarly, menstruating women must live outside the city walls... witches must be put to death... meat and dairy can't go on the same plate... etc etc etc


Now some Christians claim that the New Testament supersedes the brutality of the Old Testament and Torah... but these self same people also hate fags with a passion...

For the record, Jeebus never said anything about homos... (except a reference to "upholding the Law" which he himself regularly flouted)



But, most importantly of all.... Evangelical Christians (Ameranthropoides non-sapiens) conveniently neglect the possibility that Jesus himself was a queer...

He wasn't married (an unmarried Jewish over thirty man is also a "abomination" according to the Torah).

He hung around with 12 sailors.

He had a female friend he wasn't banging (Mary Magdelene).

He was devoted to his mother.

He threw a hissy fit when his Dad's house was messy (expelling the money traders from the temple)

He had a special disciple (John) described as "the young man whom Jesus loved"

When he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane he was meeting a young man dressed only in a linen shroud (this same young man simply slipped loose his garment and ran off stark naked when accosted by a Roman soldier).

One of the early Christian cults (I think they were called Capocrations) claimed to have a secret gospel of Mark which detailed the secret sodomy rituals preserved for the inner initiates... one of the early Church Fathers admitted the existence of such a secret gospel but denied the buggery part (but then again, he did deny the very existence of the secret gospel... until he didn't).


And besides all this... Jesus has no moral standing whatsoever, I can prove he was actually evil.


The Luke 

Interesting post.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #78 on: May 31, 2008, 04:11:13 PM »
3 pages and no one replied to this...

The California legislature twice passed a same-sex marriage bill, twice it was vetoed by Schwarzenegger.   His stated reason: "the courts should decide". 

I'm aware of that, Tim.


In 1948, the California Supreme Court also overturned miscegenation laws, making it legal for people of different races to marry.  (it would take 20 years for the US Supreme Court to do the same). If there was talk radio back then, don't you think they'd be talking about 'activist judges' and overturning the will of the people?   And if California had ballot propositions back then, don't you think groups (like I don't know, the KKK) would rush one onto the ballot to overturn that decision?

As I said about that particular Supreme Court verdict, the issue was white marrying non-whites, NOT interracial marriage in general. That was one of the points the Supreme Court acknowledged. In Virginia, different non-white races could intermarry with no punitive action taken.


there is some talk about whether the ballot measure in November can even overturn the decision.  the recent ruling states that same-sex couple must be treated the same as opposite-sex couples.  the ballot measure as written says gays can't get married.   passing the proposition wouldn't overturn the supreme court ruling.  it could be interpreted to mean that since the state government can't give out same-sex marriage licenses, but they have to treat gays and straights equally, they may not be able to give out opposite sex licenses either.

I'm aware of Schwarzenegger's vetoes, Tim.

The constitutional amendment, if passed, would overturn the state Supreme Court's decision. That's the point. And, should it happen, it would be the first time. The state courts of Alaska and Hawaii did the same thing, ruling that their laws that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman (1M-1W) were unconstitutional.

But, those rulings were short-lived, because the citizens in both states easily passed constitutional amendments that clearly defined marriage as a 1M-1W union.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #79 on: May 31, 2008, 05:12:01 PM »
The biggest issue here is birth certificate infallibility...


Here's how to institute gay marriage in any conservative state (again in a few easy steps):


A gay couple (Bob & Randy) applies for a marriage license... they are denied.

They sue the state on the grounds that Randy is actually female and their union is not subject to the Bush Administrations infantile amendment to the constitution.

They lose the case on the grounds that Randy's birth certificate classes him as a male (birth certificates are fallible; my maternal grandfather was 165 years old when he died, a direct result of clerical error in his birthdate: 1820 not 1920). So they appeal to the Supreme Court... and this is where they have the legal system by the balls.

THERE IS NO MEDICAL CONSENSUS ON WHAT DIAGNOSTIC PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE SEXES.

The Supreme Court, swayed by NeoCon appointees then has only one option... to define the sexes in medical terms itself (birth certificate classifications an be overturned: see the test cases involving intersex people, hermaphrodites and androgen insensitive males [classed female]).


This would then incur the laughable scenario of all engaged couples being subject to the same test that excludes male-male and female-female marriage.

THIS IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

NO AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE MADE SUBJECT TO MEDICAL DISCRIMINATION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF GENDER BY ANY STATE OR FEDERAL STIPULATION.


If the gay lobby concentrated their efforts on an anti-discrimination agenda in concert with the efforts of intersex and hermaphodite pressure groups they could easily force the state into the position of mandating a "Cruciamentum" for all prospective marriage license applicants.

Yes Mr-Jeebus-Loving-Hill-Billy-Red-Neck-Republican-Voting-Moron, you can have a ban on gay marriage just like Jeebus wanted... but it means you and Mrs-Jeebus-Loving-Hill-Billy-Red-Neck-Republican-Voting-Moron will have to take a few tests before you two can get your marriage ratified also.


So, could you and your fiance please report to your local county hospital for the usual Hope-you're-not-related blood test and some new tests:
-DNA sex chromosome test
-full hormone profile
-androgen receptor gene test
-two complete physical genital inspections (2nd opinion required)
-ultrasound of your abdomen (to make sure she has ovaries and he doesn't)
-full body DEXA scan to check the extent and gerndrification of your physical structure)
-full MRI scan of the sex-specific brain structures
-extensive PET scan (Positron Emission Topography) in conjunction with real-time image association testing to quantify sexual preference

Even after all this you might have the scenario wherein a male/female marriage is ratified on the grounds that the man is 51% male:49% female and the women is 49% male:51% female despite the fact that there would be a significantly higher gender difference between the average gay couple... 


Can you imagine the befuddlement when all these Evangelical hate-mongers are told by a scientist exactly what percentage male and female they are (average bloke is only 70% male, average girl is only 70% female: it's a double lobed Bell curve distribution)... exactly what their genetic sexual preference is (that should pan out to 50% hetero; 40% bi; 10% gay for males and 50% hetero; 35% bi; 5% gay for females)... and while we're at it we might as well tell the homophobes exactly how many gay genes they are carrying (in case they want to have kids).



Might be a good idea to also tell 14-17% of them that their biological father is not who they think their biological father is (go have a talk with Mom), and maybe tell the racists exactly what percentage black they are... (very few full-blooded whites in the US).


You simply can't discriminate without a scientific basis for it. The science is against gay/hetero discrimination... just too many shades of pink.


The Luke

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #80 on: May 31, 2008, 05:29:29 PM »
The biggest issue here is birth certificate infallibility...


Here's how to institute gay marriage in any conservative state (again in a few easy steps):


A gay couple (Bob & Randy) applies for a marriage license... they are denied.

They sue the state on the grounds that Randy is actually female and their union is not subject to the Bush Administrations infantile amendment to the constitution.

They lose the case on the grounds that Randy's birth certificate classes him as a male (birth certificates are fallible; my maternal grandfather was 165 years old when he died, a direct result of clerical error in his birthdate: 1820 not 1920). So they appeal to the Supreme Court... and this is where they have the legal system by the balls.

THERE IS NO MEDICAL CONSENSUS ON WHAT DIAGNOSTIC PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE SEXES.

The Supreme Court, swayed by NeoCon appointees then has only one option... to define the sexes in medical terms itself (birth certificate classifications an be overturned: see the test cases involving intersex people, hermaphrodites and androgen insensitive males [classed female]).


This would then incur the laughable scenario of all engaged couples being subject to the same test that excludes male-male and female-female marriage.

THIS IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

NO AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE MADE SUBJECT TO MEDICAL DISCRIMINATION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF GENDER BY ANY STATE OR FEDERAL STIPULATION.


If the gay lobby concentrated their efforts on an anti-discrimination agenda in concert with the efforts of intersex and hermaphodite pressure groups they could easily force the state into the position of mandating a "Cruciamentum" for all prospective marriage license applicants.

Yes Mr-Jeebus-Loving-Hill-Billy-Red-Neck-Republican-Voting-Moron, you can have a ban on gay marriage just like Jeebus wanted... but it means you and Mrs-Jeebus-Loving-Hill-Billy-Red-Neck-Republican-Voting-Moron will have to take a few tests before you two can get your marriage ratified also.


So, could you and your fiance please report to your local county hospital for the usual Hope-you're-not-related blood test and some new tests:
-DNA sex chromosome test
-full hormone profile
-androgen receptor gene test
-two complete physical genital inspections (2nd opinion required)
-ultrasound of your abdomen (to make sure she has ovaries and he doesn't)
-full body DEXA scan to check the extent and gerndrification of your physical structure)
-full MRI scan of the sex-specific brain structures
-extensive PET scan (Positron Emission Topography) in conjunction with real-time image association testing to quantify sexual preference

Even after all this you might have the scenario wherein a male/female marriage is ratified on the grounds that the man is 51% male:49% female and the women is 49% male:51% female despite the fact that there would be a significantly higher gender difference between the average gay couple... 


Can you imagine the befuddlement when all these Evangelical hate-mongers are told by a scientist exactly what percentage male and female they are (average bloke is only 70% male, average girl is only 70% female: it's a double lobed Bell curve distribution)... exactly what their genetic sexual preference is (that should pan out to 50% hetero; 40% bi; 10% gay for males and 50% hetero; 35% bi; 5% gay for females)... and while we're at it we might as well tell the homophobes exactly how many gay genes they are carrying (in case they want to have kids).



Might be a good idea to also tell 14-17% of them that their biological father is not who they think their biological father is (go have a talk with Mom), and maybe tell the racists exactly what percentage black they are... (very few full-blooded whites in the US).


You simply can't discriminate without a scientific basis for it. The science is against gay/hetero discrimination... just too many shades of pink.


The Luke

Ummm.....before you go on another pointless tirade, perhaps you should remember that the "blue" states don't have these "Jeebus-loving-hibilly-rednecks". Yet, they passed the constitutional amendments that their citizens put on their ballots.

That would be states such as like Hawaii, Michigan, Wisconsin, and, Oregon

Or, did you forget about the fact that Missouri passed its constitutional amendment 71-29, despite 60% of the voters being democrats.

BTW, what will the excuse be if the biggest blue state of them all passes a constitutional amendment, defining marriage as a 1M-1W union?

Heywood

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1396
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #81 on: May 31, 2008, 05:45:22 PM »
There are no human societies throughout history and throughout the world that have recognized same-sex marriage, except, of course, in the last 3 or 4 years or so.

I don't think we should throw away or destroy the most basic human institution so arbitrarily.








The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #82 on: May 31, 2008, 06:01:28 PM »
There are no human societies throughout history and throughout the world that have recognized same-sex marriage, except, of course, in the last 3 or 4 years or so.

I don't think we should throw away or destroy the most basic human institution so arbitrarily.

...eh, Ireland had it for a couple of thousand years.

We have a 500 year old memorial commemorating St Patrick consecrating a gay marriage.

Societies that did recognise gay marriage:
-Rome (ie: Europe from 500 BC to 400 AD)
-Greece
-Celtic Europe
-Ireland
-Sparta (enforced homosexuality)
-China
-Mongolia

...if you include medieval gay clubs (priories, convents, monasteries, clerical orders and priesthoods) wherein people were bound to the order and property rights were shared something akin to a marriage then I think that list would stretch to include all societies in human histories. (except perhaps the Vikings)

The militant ignorance on this site is palpable.

Heywood is obviously a moron and MCWAY fails to comprehend any argument put to him (I was inferring that the courts present an inevitable success for gay marriage, it has nothing to do with political maneuverings).


The Luke

The Master

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13786
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #83 on: May 31, 2008, 06:02:17 PM »
There are no human societies throughout history and throughout the world that have recognized same-sex marriage, except, of course, in the last 3 or 4 years or so.






That is because humans are finally growing up.

Camel Jockey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16711
  • Mel Gibson and Bob Sly World Domination
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #84 on: May 31, 2008, 06:04:37 PM »

That is because humans are finally growing up.


Word.

It's amazing the arguements these morons put up against gay marriage. None are valid, none show why it would be bad for society as a whole to deny these civil liberties to certain people who're different.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #85 on: May 31, 2008, 06:13:36 PM »
Though this is completely off-topic (and now, that I'm finished LAUGHING), I'd like to address some of these claims here.


The thing I find so strange about the supposed "Christian" opposition to gay marriage is that no one who expounds the biblical interdiction against same sex marriage/intercourse has actually read Leviticus (the book of Jewish Law).

The passage which forbids gay marriage states that "no man shall lay with another man as he would with a woman" ...on pain of death (as per usual).

Firstly, that's a ban on male-male anal sex... we know Jewish peoples had sacred temple priestesses who only performed anal sex even after the adoption of Mosaic Law...  so the sodomy of women seems to be fine with Yahweh.

Secondly, the same passage that supposedly bans homosexuality also bans the eating of shellfish... and also under penalty of death.


WHAT!!!! Please get your facts straight. Shellfish were part of the "unclean foods" list. Anyone who ate those simply got deemed "unclean" and quarantined from the camp for 24 hours.

And unlike what's presented in this post of your (among others), I will cite the references to back my statements.

Lev. 11:24, And for these ye shall be unclean; whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until even. That don't sound like the death penalty to me.


Thirdly, God clearly didn't write/inspire these particular passages as they also include a blanket death penalty for any man who accidentally kills another man... seeing as God is presumably the originator of all accidents he either:
-doesn't agree with these prohibitions (or wasn't consulted)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of killing people he doesn't approve of (while also having his subjects murder the innocent patsy of his choosing)
-uses industrial accidents as a method of framing people he doesn't approve of for the death penalty (while sacrificing an innocent pawn of his choosing)

Similarly, menstruating women must live outside the city walls... witches must be put to death... meat and dairy can't go on the same plate... etc etc etc


Now some Christians claim that the New Testament supersedes the brutality of the Old Testament and Torah... but these self same people also hate fags with a passion...

For the record, Jeebus never said anything about homos... (except a reference to "upholding the Law" which he himself regularly flouted)

What Jesus DID say, when questions about matters of marriage and sex was, "For this reason, shall a man leave to his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE. And the two shall become one flesh". The message was clear, when it comes to sexual behavior, any kind outside of marriage (defined as a one man, one woman union) was sinful, which INCLUDES HOMOSEXUALITY.



But, most importantly of all.... Evangelical Christians (Ameranthropoides non-sapiens) conveniently neglect the possibility that Jesus himself was a queer...

<<pause for hysterical laughter>>

Jesus' antagonists were looking for reasons to have Him put to death, as He kept embarrasing them. If Jesus were gay, the Pharisees could have put him to death, based on that alone.


He wasn't married (an unmarried Jewish over thirty man is also a "abomination" according to the Torah).

Jesus made it clear, that He had no intention to set up any earthly kingdom or legacy. Hence, there's no need for a wife or children.


He hung around with 12 sailors.

Come again. Matthew was a tax-collector; John grew up in an influential home among priests. Andrew and Peter were fishermen. Again, please get your facts, straight, before posting such mess.


He had a female friend he wasn't banging (Mary Magdelene).

Again, no earthly kingdom, no intent to leave an earthly descendant; hence no marriage, wife, or kids.


He was devoted to his mother.

DUH!!!! His earthly father (Joseph) was dead. The firstborn son (unmarried) always took care of his mother and the younger unmarried siblings.


He threw a hissy fit when his Dad's house was messy (expelling the money traders from the temple)

He had a special disciple (John) described as "the young man whom Jesus loved"

And that makes Jesus gay how (this may come as a shock to you, but you can love another guy without being gay, unless you have no male friends, whatsoever)?




When he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane he was meeting a young man dressed only in a linen shroud (this same young man simply slipped loose his garment and ran off stark naked when accosted by a Roman soldier).

One of the early Christian cults (I think they were called Capocrations) claimed to have a secret gospel of Mark which detailed the secret sodomy rituals preserved for the inner initiates... one of the early Church Fathers admitted the existence of such a secret gospel but denied the buggery part (but then again, he did deny the very existence of the secret gospel... until he didn't).

And this "secret Gospel" has been sliced, diced, and julien-ed more times than the law allows. Why is it that an allgedly gay Jesus is never charged with sodomy, especially with a bunch of people looking for excuses to kill Him?


And besides all this... Jesus has no moral standing whatsoever, I can prove he was actually evil.

The Luke 

Go for it (but on another thread. Let's see how many blunders come up, as a result).

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #86 on: May 31, 2008, 06:17:40 PM »
Word.

It's amazing the arguements these morons put up against gay marriage. None are valid, none show why it would be bad for society as a whole to deny these civil liberties to certain people who're different.

So, why is it good for society as a whole? And if it is, why aren't gay "marriage" supporters, beating the streets to get signatures and petitions for state constitutional amendments, redefining marriage to accomodate homosexuals?

Heywood

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1396
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #87 on: May 31, 2008, 06:24:07 PM »
...eh, Ireland had it for a couple of thousand years.

We have a 500 year old memorial commemorating St Patrick consecrating a gay marriage.

Societies that did recognise gay marriage:
-Rome (ie: Europe from 500 BC to 400 AD)
-Greece
-Celtic Europe
-Ireland
-Sparta (enforced homosexuality)
-China
-Mongolia

...if you include medieval gay clubs (priories, convents, monasteries, clerical orders and priesthoods) wherein people were bound to the order and property rights were shared something akin to a marriage then I think that list would stretch to include all societies in human histories. (except perhaps the Vikings)

The militant ignorance on this site is palpable.

Heywood is obviously a moron and MCWAY fails to comprehend any argument put to him (I was inferring that the courts present an inevitable success for gay marriage, it has nothing to do with political maneuverings).


The Luke

I think you are completely full of bull, and your "degree" in sociology needs to be examined.





The Master

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13786
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #88 on: May 31, 2008, 06:27:23 PM »
So, why is it good for society as a whole?

Because it is a testament to tolerance, and to "moving away" from ancient irrational values, and because homosexuals are no longer discriminated by the law which = supposed to be secular and objective.

Allowing gay marrage is good for the homosexuals, and it really does not hurt anyone directly. The only thing it does is to create friction while certain people has to free themselves from backwards thinking which is holding society back anyway. Thus, allowing gay marrage means that the faggits gets MORE pleasure while society as a whole eventually benefits from the tolerance improvement this causes while becoming more free from "backwards thinking/irrationality". Thus, not only does the faggits benefit from it, but most other people eventually becomes free from their own delusional values that only serves to hurt other people while serving NO GOOD.

In other words: Everybody benefits from it, and nothing is lost because the reasons for DENYING gay marrage has no value for a society, it actually damages it. Believing that allowing only heterosexual marrage is some kind of "positive cultural shit that has value in itself" is a moronic belief. It is the same as thinking that circumsition (mutilation) of women at birth has some value because some dumb african community thinks it has some value. The result is that many girls are fucked up for life just because of a ritual that does not do anything. That african society would be better of if they never had the thing in the first place. Same shit applies to the current denial of gay marrage. Let the faggits marry as they want, nobody has the right to deny them to do so, because that is trying to inhibit other peoples freedom to do something that hurts nobody else via the law just to uphold some outdated moronic ritual.

G o a t b o y

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 21431
  • Time-Out in Dubai, India with Swampi the Cocksmith
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #89 on: May 31, 2008, 06:28:56 PM »
I couldn't care less if the fags want to get married.  It doesn't affect me, and it is a stupid thing to be concerned about.  Although, I seriously gotta wonder about the people who get all up in arms about this.  :-\
Ron: "I am lazy."

The Master

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13786
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #90 on: May 31, 2008, 06:33:49 PM »
I couldn't care less if the fags want to get married.  It doesn't affect me, and it is a stupid thing to be concerned about.  Although, I seriously gotta wonder about the people who get all up in arms about this.  :-\


It = because they are backwards thinking morons. The same people gets all winded up about the muslim treatment of women, but they go all gaga when somebody tries to inhibit them from practicing the exact same way of thinking and acting towards the gays as the muslims do with their backwardness. In both instances, it is just trying to uphold some irrational cultural heritage through discriminating against somebody else that should have the same rights as everybody else.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #91 on: May 31, 2008, 06:35:33 PM »
I couldn't care less if the fags want to get married.  It doesn't affect me, and it is a stupid thing to be concerned about.  Although, I seriously gotta wonder about the people who get all up in arms about this.  :-\

I love the people who are twice/thrice divorced (not to mention cheating) lecturing us on the sanctity of marriage.  :D


Btw, who would have guessed that the topic of gay marriage, on a bodybuilding board like getbig, would generate 13 pages worth of interest (4 pages here and 9 pages on the Political board).


The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #92 on: May 31, 2008, 06:38:27 PM »
Well, MCWAY, you fell for it...

I was hoping you'd notice those errors (actually not errors but exact exaggerations)... I wanted to quote your counter arguments (which you learn by heart and seemingly don't understand) in order to better demonstrate for everyone else on the board why your uninformed opinion is the result of biased arguing.

I misquoted Leviticus because now that you have insisted on direct quotations anyone else who is as bored of your stupidity as I am can go through Leviticus and point out all the absurdities therein and you can attempt to defend them. Especially the Lord's decrees with regard to who makes a suitable slave and under which circumstances slave girls can be raped.

I'll rest my argument on the intelligence of my fellow atheists... they got the humour when I referred to the disciples as sailors (done for the effect of emphasizing Jesus' "Village People" kitsch factor).


What I'd really enjoy would be your counter to my (facetious) proof that Jesus was actually EVIL.

Read back, you'll find it... it's epically funny because there is no counter argument.


Good luck.


The Luke

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #93 on: May 31, 2008, 06:54:06 PM »
Well, MCWAY, you fell for it...

I was hoping you'd notice those errors (actually not errors but exact exaggerations)... I wanted to quote your counter arguments (which you learn by heart and seemingly don't understand) in order to better demonstrate for everyone else on the board why your uninformed opinion is the result of biased arguing.


I misquoted Leviticus because now that you have insisted on direct quotations anyone else who is as bored of your stupidity as I am can go through Leviticus and point out all the absurdities therein and you can attempt to defend them. Especially the Lord's decrees with regard to who makes a suitable slave and under which circumstances slave girls can be raped.

You have a wacky habit of making claims, without citing specific references. And, now I'm to believe that you intentionally stated that eating shellfish was a capital offense, for the sole purpose of trapping me.....RIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!

As is all too often the case, another atheist decides to start flapping his mouth, making wild claims and hurling insults. But, when you get the heart of the matter, you have no substance to back your statements


I'll rest my argument on the intelligence of my fellow atheists... they got the humour when I referred to the disciples as sailors (done for the effect of emphasizing Jesus' "Village People" kitsch factor).


What I'd really enjoy would be your counter to my (facetious) proof that Jesus was actually EVIL.

Read back, you'll find it... it's epically funny because there is no counter argument.

Good luck.

The Luke

As I said, if you want to continue this silliness, do it elsewhere. I'd prefer, at this point, to stick to the topic at hand.

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #94 on: May 31, 2008, 06:59:07 PM »
Can you imagine the befuddlement when all these Evangelical hate-mongers are told by a scientist exactly what percentage male and female they are

'cept the Evangelicals you talk about don't believe in science, or believe that science is a tool of the devil

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #95 on: May 31, 2008, 07:08:29 PM »
Because it is a testament to tolerance, and to "moving away" from ancient irrational values, and because homosexuals are no longer discriminated by the law which = supposed to be secular and objective.

And who made the declaration these values are irrational? Besides, if law is secular and objective, that means that gay "marriage" is neither good nor bad. It's merely a preference. Therefore, if the people decide they want it to be legal, that's fine; if they decide that they don't want it to be legal, that's fine as well.




Allowing gay marrage is good for the homosexuals, and it really does not hurt anyone directly. The only thing it does is to create friction while certain people has to free themselves from backwards thinking which is holding society back anyway. Thus, allowing gay marrage means that the faggits gets MORE pleasure while society as a whole eventually benefits from the tolerance improvement this causes while becoming more free from "backwards thinking/irrationality". Thus, not only does the faggits benefit from it, but most other people eventually becomes free from their own delusional values that only serves to hurt other people while serving NO GOOD.

Holding society back from what?

This same "backwards thinking" says that it's wrong to steal, cheat, lie, dishonor your parents, and commit adultery. If you are (or were to get) married and your wife was cheating on you, I highly doubt you would see it as her being free from "backwards thinking"?


In other words: Everybody benefits from it, and nothing is lost because the reasons for DENYING gay marrage has no value for a society, it actually damages it. Believing that allowing only heterosexual marrage is some kind of "positive cultural shit that has value in itself" is a moronic belief. It is the same as thinking that circumsition (mutilation) of women at birth has some value because some dumb african community thinks it has some value. The result is that many girls are fucked up for life just because of a ritual that does not do anything. That african society would be better of if they never had the thing in the first place. Same shit applies to the current denial of gay marrage. Let the faggits marry as they want, nobody has the right to deny them to do so, because that is trying to inhibit other peoples freedom to do something that hurts nobody else via the law just to uphold some outdated moronic ritual.


The members of the society determine what does and doesn't have value. And, as I've said earlier, if gay "marriage" is so valuable, there ain't nothing stopping YOU or anyone else who supports gay "marriage" to start a petiton to get constitutional amendments put on their states' ballot.

If you expect your kids to obey and respect you, then you are upholding this "outdated moronic ritual". If you expect your wife to be faithful to you, you uphold this "outdated moronic ritual". If you expect people not to take your things without your permission........you get the point.

G o a t b o y

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 21431
  • Time-Out in Dubai, India with Swampi the Cocksmith
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #96 on: May 31, 2008, 07:11:41 PM »
'cept the Evangelicals you talk about don't believe in science, or believe that science is a tool of the devil



America would be a far better place if we did a holocaust number on all the evangelicals.  We'll call it "evolution at work".
Ron: "I am lazy."

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #97 on: May 31, 2008, 07:14:26 PM »
I'm sorry...

I made a mistake. You see I read this:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

...and then I read further and found this...

"If a man lie with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

 ...and came to the conclusion that the punishment for an abomination was death. Especially seeing as death was the proscribed punishment for even lesser crimes... such as disrespect:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

I (seemingly) wrongly assumed death would be the punishment for ALL other abominations listed in Leviticus:

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
...don't eat shellfish.

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
...really, don't eat shellfish.

"And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard." (Leviticus 11:13)
...don't eat certain birds either.

"All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:20)
...don't eat insects either (unless you're John the Baptist and eat mostly locusts).

"Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth, these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination." (Leviticus 11:42)
...presumably locusts somehow don't count in this group.

Seeing as I was so wrong on this obvious distinct legal term abomination which merits capital punishment in one verse but seemingly has another distinct and contradictory meaning later in the same chapter (a distinction that eludes me).

I'm sure MCWAY can similarly explain all the faults in my argument that Jesus was essentially evil because he never once spoke out against slavery and female oppression (see my previous more detailed post for the full argument).

Let's give him a chance to read back and decide which combination of equivocation, evasion and selective reasoning qualifies as the Christian viewpoint on this topic.


The Luke

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #98 on: May 31, 2008, 07:16:50 PM »


America would be a far better place if we did a holocaust number on all the evangelicals.  We'll call it "evolution at work".

Considering that you'd be grossly outnumbered (and outgunned, being as the evangelicals are supposedly a bunch of rifle-toting rednecks), you might want to reconsider that idea.

G o a t b o y

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 21431
  • Time-Out in Dubai, India with Swampi the Cocksmith
Re: California and same sex "marriage"
« Reply #99 on: May 31, 2008, 07:18:22 PM »
Considering that you'd be grossly outnumbered (and outgunned, being as the evangelicals are supposedly a bunch of rifle-toting rednecks), you might want to reconsider that idea.


At most, you're a third of the population, and the other 2/3 hates your guts.  (And don't worry about the gun thing, I have plenty.  ;))
Ron: "I am lazy."