U.S. hostage Johnson apparently beheaded

before someone says that i deleted something in the heat of an arguement...i edited my post above to fix the smiley that wasnt showing up properly

for some magically reason? lol...mr perfect turns out to be not so perfect
 
A backhanded compliment! I love it!!
That's a great comment, Psyclerk :)


** NOT SARCASTIC***
(Sarcasm is very difficult to pick up on message boards, and sometimes things not meant to be sarcastic come off as such.)
 
Ah. Even better then :)

It's that whole lack of clues from vocal tone and facial expressions make it a little more difficult to pin down the intent of a statement. :)
 
[quote name='abates17'][quote name='trq']That's a non-sequitur -- "I bet any argument you make about X can also be applied to Y, and Y is clearly wrong." Fine, but it's apples and oranges. Homosexuality is not pedophelia is not incest is not plain ol' pre-marital sex.[/quote]

No, but if the same arguments can be made for both incest and gay marriage, then you have to conclude that either both should be legal, or that there is some other factor that differentiates the two. So, to recap, here are the arguments in support of gay marriage, along with my comments about their applicability to a marriage between two relative of consenting age:

1. Because US citizens should have the right to marry.

No difference here.

2. Because it is really non of your business, just like it is none of my business if you have an interracial marriage.

No difference here.

3. Because religion is mostly dominating the argument, which really should have no part of gov actions.

No difference here.

6. When you dont allow gays to marry and just give them a civil union it decreases their status as citizens.

No difference here.

7. All US citizens are created equal, and have the right to pursue happiness.

No difference here.

So basically, all of the arguments in support of gay marriage are saying, "Why should the government tell you who you can and can't marry? It's none of their business. Every American should be free to marry who they want." So, why should those same arguments NOT apply to an incestuous marriage between two consenting adults?
[/quote]

1. Yes U.S Citizens have the right to marry but the word Marraige is the Union of a man and a women. If everyone in college went Hey, I can "marry" my roommate, get tax deductions and all the other great stuff that comes with being married legally. He leaves college and moves into a house with a roommate to pay for it and stuff, marries him, after divorcing the other takes even better advantage of the marraige laws and rights. Getting married is a simple as going to the court and getting a damn liscence. that's all you have to do. hell, sign a pre-nup and divorce goes smoother. and both of you know you can't get screwed.

2.Interraical is fine, the world has realized that the color of your skin doesn't change anything, there and male and female african americans. What's my business is that this country doesn't go around taking away my right to get married to a women one day and rewrite it "Hey gays, you can marry your boyfriend, cuz this country is Politically correct" Politically correct is a bunch of crap.

3. Religion is the most dominating arguement cuz it's the only Damn thing in this world that hasn't changed it's standards, with the exception of new age shity religons. Why are we in this country? RELIGOUS FREEDOM to ESCAPE PERSACUTION DUE TO RELIGION. This country is here becasue of RELIGION. Here's the catch it does and it should, Christianity is against abortion and gay marriage to name a few. There for I want a leader who is not going to breach my beliefs and make those legal. That's why i'm a Republican, and Support George W. Bush 100%.

6. They don't have the right to marry. Marriage is not between Mr. and Mr. Queer, It's for Mr. and Mrs. Straight. I don't even want them having a civil union. All the better to decrease there status.

7. All US citizens are created equal, again religious, and have the right to pursue happines. They already must be happy, There GAY. They took that word and every time I hear it I get P.O. because it doesn't have a damn thing to do with happiness.

abates17, i for one am F&#king lost in your statment. one second you support Queer Marriage the next you change and i can't tell wtf is going on.
 
I know this will get everyone fired up but how come all the people that are against gay marriage make the most spelling and grammatical mistakes?
 
[quote name='fireball343']3. Religion is the most dominating arguement cuz it's the only Damn thing in this world that hasn't changed it's standards, with the exception of new age shity religons. Why are we in this country? RELIGOUS FREEDOM to ESCAPE PERSACUTION DUE TO RELIGION. This country is here becasue of RELIGION. Here's the catch it does and it should, Christianity is against abortion and gay marriage to name a few. There for I want a leader who is not going to breach my beliefs and make those legal. That's why i'm a Republican, and Support George W. Bush 100%.[/quote]

You may want to note here that NO Republican president has done anything to try and reverse Roe v. Wade. They only pay lip service to knuckle-dragging fundamentalist to get their vote and the sheeple fall for it.

P.S. You're gonna make some man a fine husband.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I know this will get everyone fired up but how come all the people that are against gay marriage make the most spelling and grammatical mistakes?[/quote]

Because everything they ever need to think or know has been thought or knowed in the bible. They don't need any book learning.

Or if they're not religious, they could just be fucking morons.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Since I haven't had a chance to reply lately and have seen what this has become I want to add one point. Since everyone keeps bringing up religion and what is morally wrong this and that I feel it necessary to mention something that goes along with the Dr. Laura letter that was previously posted.

The bible also says about sex that sex is ONLY allowed between two married people and ONLY for the purpose of procreation. Remember how Jesus's mommy was a virgin, it was because even though her and Joseph were married they didn't want to have children yet and therefore did not have sex.

People followed this rule in biblical times and since marriage is so religiously based (according to all of you) then I expect that all you married people should IMMEDIATELY STOP having sex unless you are trying to concieve. That would be pretty morally right huh?

See its really easy for people to pick and choose what they want from the bible, but when its something that will be to their detriment then they just skim right over it.[/quote]

You do realize that Joseph and Mary weren't even married yet when Jesus was conceived, don't you? She was just betrothed to be married to him.

He was going to basically end his engagement with her until an angel came to him in a dream and told him the baby was from God. Then he married her.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The bible also says about sex that sex is ONLY allowed between two married people[/quote]

...right...

[quote name='RedvsBlue']and ONLY for the purpose of procreation.[/quote]

Wrong.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Remember how Jesus's mommy was a virgin, it was because even though her and Joseph were married they didn't want to have children yet and therefore did not have sex.[/quote]

Uh, no. Mary and Joseph were pledged to be married, but not yet married. Then, once Mary was pregnant with Jesus, Joseph did not have sex with her until after the child was born. Nowhere does it mention that they didn't have sex because they didn't want kids yet.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']People followed this rule in biblical times and since marriage is so religiously based (according to all of you) then I expect that all you married people should IMMEDIATELY STOP having sex unless you are trying to concieve.[/quote]

Sorry, but you're wrong. There are many Biblical passages that talk about the beauty of the sex act, completely separate from procreation. But since you're such a Biblical scholar, I'm sure you'll be able to find the passage that specifies that sex is only for procreation and post it here.
 
Politics and Relgion. The cause of, and answer to, all of life's problems.

(Shamelessly paraphrased from the Simpsons)
 
While the bible may not directly say that sex is for procreation only, it sure as hell points directly toward it. We can all agree that sex outside marriage is a big no-no, that's not part of the arguement.

Within that the bible says a "man should not waste his seed" and that contraceptives should never be used during intercourse. Anyone who has taken biology will know that unprotected sex leads to babies.

This all means that, with the addition of a little bit of simple logic, that married people should not have sex unless they are going to have babies (which is called procreation by the way). Ergo sex is only for the purpose of procreation between a husband and wife.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']While the bible may not directly say that sex is for procreation only, it sure as hell points directly toward it. We can all agree that sex outside marriage is a big no-no, that's not part of the arguement.

Within that the bible says a "man should not waste his seed" and that contraceptives should never be used during intercourse. Anyone who has taken biology will know that unprotected sex leads to babies.

This all means that, with the addition of a little bit of simple logic, that married people should not have sex unless they are going to have babies (which is called procreation by the way). Ergo sex is only for the purpose of procreation between a husband and wife.[/quote]

I'm not weighing in one way or the other on the issue at hand, but the Bible encourages married men and women to have sex for pleasure. I would quote verses, but I sure as hell don't remember them. Plus you didn't quote either, so I don't feel obligated (hey, thanks!).

Back to arguing about beheading gay marriages.
 
[quote name='abates17'][quote name='RedvsBlue']The bible also says about sex that sex is ONLY allowed between two married people[/quote]

...right...

[quote name='RedvsBlue']and ONLY for the purpose of procreation.[/quote]

Wrong.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Remember how Jesus's mommy was a virgin, it was because even though her and Joseph were married they didn't want to have children yet and therefore did not have sex.[/quote]

Uh, no. Mary and Joseph were pledged to be married, but not yet married. Then, once Mary was pregnant with Jesus, Joseph did not have sex with her until after the child was born. Nowhere does it mention that they didn't have sex because they didn't want kids yet.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']People followed this rule in biblical times and since marriage is so religiously based (according to all of you) then I expect that all you married people should IMMEDIATELY STOP having sex unless you are trying to concieve.[/quote]

Sorry, but you're wrong. There are many Biblical passages that talk about the beauty of the sex act, completely separate from procreation. But since you're such a Biblical scholar, I'm sure you'll be able to find the passage that specifies that sex is only for procreation and post it here.[/quote]

since you are such a god biblical scholar how come there is nothing in the bible about Jesus growing up, u would think the son of god would have an interesting childhood and what about Jesus's brothers or sisters, or how about his relations with females or maybe even a marriage, bible only talks about what who uses it for their religion want u to read.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever'][quote name='abates17'][quote name='RedvsBlue']The bible also says about sex that sex is ONLY allowed between two married people[/quote]

...right...

[quote name='RedvsBlue']and ONLY for the purpose of procreation.[/quote]

Wrong.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Remember how Jesus's mommy was a virgin, it was because even though her and Joseph were married they didn't want to have children yet and therefore did not have sex.[/quote]

Uh, no. Mary and Joseph were pledged to be married, but not yet married. Then, once Mary was pregnant with Jesus, Joseph did not have sex with her until after the child was born. Nowhere does it mention that they didn't have sex because they didn't want kids yet.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']People followed this rule in biblical times and since marriage is so religiously based (according to all of you) then I expect that all you married people should IMMEDIATELY STOP having sex unless you are trying to concieve.[/quote]

Sorry, but you're wrong. There are many Biblical passages that talk about the beauty of the sex act, completely separate from procreation. But since you're such a Biblical scholar, I'm sure you'll be able to find the passage that specifies that sex is only for procreation and post it here.[/quote]

since you are such a god biblical scholar how come there is nothing in the bible about Jesus growing up, u would think the son of god would have an interesting childhood and what about Jesus's brothers or sisters, or how about his relations with females or maybe even a marriage, bible only talks about what who uses it for their religion want u to read.[/quote]

Um, there are several passages in the Bible about Jesus growing up. You've probably heard the one when he was a child when he left his parents in the marketplace for a long time and went talking with the city Pharisees and Saducees. Even then, he was very wise.

And when his mom asked him where he was, he replied That he was doing his father's work.

Jesus was 33 when he started his ministry. True, it doesn't have a ton of detail about what he went through everyday of his life. Most likely the stories we have read are what people who were there told the people who wrote the books.
 
boyjesusintempletocolor.jpg


Luke 2:40-52

2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong [[in spirit]], filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not [of it].
2:44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among [their] kinsfolk and acquaintance.
2:45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
 
Who cares what the Bible has to say about gay marriage?

This is an argument to be had under the Equal Protection Clause of the USC.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Who cares what the Bible has to say about gay marriage?

This is an argument to be had under the Equal Protection Clause of the USC.[/quote]

Oh I beg to differ, now its about Jesus's lack of a childhood.
 
[quote name='fireball343']abates17, i for one am F&#king lost in your statment. one second you support Queer Marriage the next you change and i can't tell wtf is going on.[/quote]

Honestly, if you don't get the point I am trying to make, then please let someone else argue against me. This thread is already long enough without be taking an extra page explaining the Socratic method.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']I know this will get everyone fired up but how come all the people that are against gay marriage make the most spelling and grammatical mistakes?[/quote]

I beg to differ. I will put my spelling and grammar up against anybody else's in this thread. Plus, I have noticed people who are for gay marriage who also have poor grammar, so please, don't make any generalizations that don't hold up to scrutiny.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']While the bible may not directly say that sex is for procreation only,[/quote]

Thank you. My point exactly.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']it sure as hell points directly toward it....

Within that the bible says a "man should not waste his seed" and that contraceptives should never be used during intercourse.[/quote]

Sorry, no. There may have been specific cases where a man was punished for "wasting his seed," but it is not specified as a sin in general. And the whole contraceptives part is just plain wrong.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Anyone who has taken biology will know that unprotected sex leads to babies.[/quote]

Another generalization. Believe it or not, it is possible to have unprotected sex without causing a pregnancy.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']This all means that, with the addition of a little bit of simple logic, that married people should not have sex unless they are going to have babies (which is called procreation by the way). Ergo sex is only for the purpose of procreation between a husband and wife.[/quote]

Your logic is based on flawed facts:

1. "Wasting your seed" is never listed as a sin for all people in the Bible.

2. The Bible does not state that contraceptives can not be used during sex. Many of the edicts on reproduction are from the Old Testament times, applied directly to the Hebrew people, and do not apply to Christianity as a whole.

3. Even if 1 and 2 were true, it is possible to have sex without causing a pregnancy.

So basically, all your points were wrong. About the only thing you got right here is that "procreation" means "having sex to have babies."
 
[quote name='abates17']Many of the edicts on reproduction are from the Old Testament times, applied directly to the Hebrew people, and do not apply to Christianity as a whole.[/quote]

So is Leviticus supposed to apply to everyone or just the Hebrews?
 
[quote name='abates17'][quote name='fireball343']abates17, i for one am F&#king lost in your statment. one second you support Queer Marriage the next you change and i can't tell wtf is going on.[/quote]

Honestly, if you don't get the point I am trying to make, then please let someone else argue against me. This thread is already long enough without be taking an extra page explaining the Socratic method.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']I know this will get everyone fired up but how come all the people that are against gay marriage make the most spelling and grammatical mistakes?[/quote]

I beg to differ. I will put my spelling and grammar up against anybody else's in this thread. Plus, I have noticed people who are for gay marriage who also have poor grammar, so please, don't make any generalizations that don't hold up to scrutiny.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']While the bible may not directly say that sex is for procreation only,[/quote]

Thank you. My point exactly.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']it sure as hell points directly toward it....

Within that the bible says a "man should not waste his seed" and that contraceptives should never be used during intercourse.[/quote]

Sorry, no. There may have been specific cases where a man was punished for "wasting his seed," but it is not specified as a sin in general. And the whole contraceptives part is just plain wrong.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Anyone who has taken biology will know that unprotected sex leads to babies.[/quote]

Another generalization. Believe it or not, it is possible to have unprotected sex without causing a pregnancy.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']This all means that, with the addition of a little bit of simple logic, that married people should not have sex unless they are going to have babies (which is called procreation by the way). Ergo sex is only for the purpose of procreation between a husband and wife.[/quote]

Your logic is based on flawed facts:

1. "Wasting your seed" is never listed as a sin for all people in the Bible.

2. The Bible does not state that contraceptives can not be used during sex. Many of the edicts on reproduction are from the Old Testament times, applied directly to the Hebrew people, and do not apply to Christianity as a whole.

3. Even if 1 and 2 were true, it is possible to have sex without causing a pregnancy.

So basically, all your points were wrong. About the only thing you got right here is that "procreation" means "having sex to have babies."[/quote]

Wow awesome arguement doesn't take a lot for you to just say no you're wrong. By the way are you saying that you have to push a button or something in order for unprotected sex to lead to pregnancy.
 
Great way to disguise the topic... I was wondering why this beheading topic was getting so much more attention than the last one.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='abates17']Many of the edicts on reproduction are from the Old Testament times, applied directly to the Hebrew people, and do not apply to Christianity as a whole.[/quote]

So is Leviticus supposed to apply to everyone or just the Hebrews?[/quote]

You obviously weren't paying attention when I stated that religions love to pick and choose what to follow in the bible.

It kind of reminds me of a guy I know who is a Jehovah's Witness. On the one hand he recognizes that you should not celebrate events such as anniversaries or birthdays (specifically his wife's...) but sees no problem with going to Vegas and spending the weekend gambling (Jehovah's witnesses are supposed to be against this too) , not to mention how everyone thinks he's cheating on his wife.
 
[quote name='daphatty']Great way to disguise the topic... I was wondering why this beheading topic was getting so much more attention than the last one.[/quote]

Daphatty, please don't lock this topic like the last one. I think we are having a civil talk and no one is calling people names or cussing at one another, so I see no reason why it should be locked.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
It kind of reminds me of a guy I know who is a Jehovah's Witness. On the one hand he recognizes that you should not celebrate events such as anniversaries or birthdays (specifically his wife's...) but sees no problem with going to Vegas and spending the weekend gambling (Jehovah's witnesses are supposed to be against this too) , not to mention how everyone thinks he's cheating on his wife.[/quote]

Then obviously he's not practicing what he's preaching. Just like any other religion, the ones who claim one thing but do another ruin it for everyone else. Look at the start of this thread...with the murder of a person. Look how their actions reflect on the whole muslim religion.
 
[quote name='abates17']

1. "Wasting your seed" is never listed as a sin for all people in the Bible.

[/quote]

I just did a little checking around (gotta love to Google) and apparently a dude named Onan was KILLED back in Genesis 38:8-10 for spilling his seed.

Edit-Sorry I should have put it in my original post that he was killed by God.
 
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']
Daphatty, please don't lock this topic like the last one. I think we are having a civil talk and no one is calling people names or cussing at one another, so I see no reason why it should be locked.[/quote]

I agree, please dont lock these threads. People are just discussing things. Theres no need to lock the thread.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='abates17']

1. "Wasting your seed" is never listed as a sin for all people in the Bible.

[/quote]

I just did a little checking around (gotta love to Google) and apparently a dude named Onan was KILLED back in Genesis 38:8-10 for spilling his seed.[/quote]

Check more. He wasn't flying solo. He was commaned to bed his brother's widow. He refused to impregnate her so he pulled out and spilled his seed. This was because any resulting children would be considered his brother's (who was dead then) and he didn't want that. Thus he was smote. Or waylaid. Or whatever The Lord Thy God did back then.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='abates17']

1. "Wasting your seed" is never listed as a sin for all people in the Bible.

[/quote]

I just did a little checking around (gotta love to Google) and apparently a dude named Onan was KILLED back in Genesis 38:8-10 for spilling his seed.[/quote]

Check more. He wasn't flying solo. He was commaned to bed his brother's widow. He refused to impregnate her so he pulled out and spilled his seed. This was because any resulting children would be considered his brother's (who was dead then) and he didn't want that. Thus he was smote. Or waylaid. Or whatever The Lord Thy God did back then.[/quote]

What's funny is he had no problem with giving her the what for, but he just didn't want the kids. I guess us guys really never change, eh?
 
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']
What's funny is he had no problem with giving her the what for, but he just didn't want the kids. I guess us guys really never change, eh?[/quote]

LOL! That's classic.
 
[quote name='"RedvsBlue"']Wow awesome arguement doesn't take a lot for you to just say no you're wrong.
Is this your clever way of admitting that you don't have a counterargument for my points?

[quote name='"RedvsBlue"']By the way are you saying that you have to push a button or something in order for unprotected sex to lead to pregnancy.

You're a smart guy; I'll let you figure it out.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='MrBadExample']So is Leviticus supposed to apply to everyone or just the Hebrews?[/quote]

You obviously weren't paying attention when I stated that religions love to pick and choose what to follow in the bible.[/quote]

You have to read the Bible in context to understand what applies to everyone, and what was just a command for a given situation at a given time. Some people may pick and choose, sure; however, that is not the case in this example. If you can cite references why my stated beliefs are wrong, then please go ahead. Otherwise, please don't claim that I am "picking and choosing" just because I state that the Bible allows some things and disallows others.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='abates17']

1. "Wasting your seed" is never listed as a sin for all people in the Bible.

[/quote]

I just did a little checking around (gotta love to Google) and apparently a dude named Onan was KILLED back in Genesis 38:8-10 for spilling his seed.

Edit-Sorry I should have put it in my original post that he was killed by God.[/quote]

And if you read about what happened to Onan in context, you'll see that Onan was killed for defiantly refusing to continue his brother's line, specifically against God's wishes. Nowhere is it stated or implied that this requirement extends to all people.
 
[quote name='abates17'][quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='abates17']

1. "Wasting your seed" is never listed as a sin for all people in the Bible.

[/quote]

I just did a little checking around (gotta love to Google) and apparently a dude named Onan was KILLED back in Genesis 38:8-10 for spilling his seed.

Edit-Sorry I should have put it in my original post that he was killed by God.[/quote]

And if you read about what happened to Onan in context, you'll see that Onan was killed for defiantly refusing to continue his brother's line, specifically against God's wishes. Nowhere is it stated or implied that this requirement extends to all people.[/quote]

The context is actually very fuzzy if you want to get technical. It doesn't say which of the two (spilling seed or not following orders) he was slain for. It simply says he was displeased for this and he was slain by god.

In addition, if it does not extend to all people does this mean that god can, at any moment, decide what you did isn't right and strike you down even if there isn't a commandment against it? Sounds like somebody (God) is changing the rules as he goes along...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The context is actually very fuzzy if you want to get technical. It doesn't say which of the two (spilling seed or not following orders) he was slain for. It simply says he was displeased for this and he was slain by god.[/quote]

If you want to get technical, it is the specifics which are fuzzy, not the context; the context is perfectly clear: Onan was commanded to continue his brother's line, he did not, and he was struck down by God for it. In context, it seems very clear that the disobedience is what he was punished for, not the action itself.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']In addition, if it does not extend to all people does this mean that god can, at any moment, decide what you did isn't right and strike you down even if there isn't a commandment against it? Sounds like somebody (God) is changing the rules as he goes along...[/quote]

First of all, in that time period, God was in direct contact with His people, and acted more directly in world events. Secondly, it's not "changing the rules" because Onan knew exactly what he was supposed to do, and refused to do it. Thirdly, we are under the New Covenant, as defined by Jesus in the New Testament, and thus the rules of how we should live our life are very clear. No trickery, no changing the rules as we go along, and no hypocritical ignorance of some parts of the Bible.
 
so this is the sunday school thread now?


who gives a shit about all of this?

some people dont like gay marriage, some people do.. some people support gays some dont.. how about we dont analyze every page of the bible in this thread..
 
[quote name='Cracka']some people dont like gay marriage, some people do.. some people support gays some dont.. how about we dont analyze every page of the bible in this thread..[/quote]

Well put. The point is: A person can validly claim that the Bible condemns gay marriage, but not believe that the Bible condemns contraception.

Happy?
 
[quote name='Grave_Addiction'] Daphatty, please don't lock this topic like the last one. I think we are having a civil talk and no one is calling people names or cussing at one another, so I see no reason why it should be locked.[/quote]

Agreed. For an internet debate about gay marriage, religion, and terrorism/war/politics, this has held up WAY better than I expected.

(Though I think some of us were a little quick to jump on the "I'm not gonna buy from Defender" nut-shot, but that's another topic.)
 
[quote name='fireball343'] 1. Yes U.S Citizens have the right to marry but the word Marraige is the Union of a man and a women. [/quote]

This isn't about grammar -- I don't see a large preponderance of English teachers opposing gay marriage. The definitions found in the dictionary or the bible aren't relevant. This is about a legal definition, plain and simple.

[quote name='fireball343'] If everyone in college went Hey, I can "marry" my roommate, get tax deductions and all the other great stuff that comes with being married legally. He leaves college and moves into a house with a roommate to pay for it and stuff, marries him, after divorcing the other takes even better advantage of the marraige laws and rights. Getting married is a simple as going to the court and getting a damn liscence. that's all you have to do. hell, sign a pre-nup and divorce goes smoother. and both of you know you can't get screwed. [/quote]

Uh-huh. I had a female roomate in college. What was to prevent us or any other heterosexual couple from doing the same thing?

[quote name='fireball343'] 2.Interraical is fine, the world has realized that the color of your skin doesn't change anything, there and male and female african americans. [/quote]

Yeah, it's fine now, because you're used to it, but before it was an accepted thing, the conservative stance was that it should be illegal because it was unnatural -- akin to beastiality -- and would lead to all sorts of abberrant behavior. Sound familiar?

Mark my words: forty years from now, gay marriage will be a done-deal, and our kids will be having the same argument about whether it should be legal to marry a clone or something, and there'll be someone suggesting that "the world has realized that the gender of who you sleep with doesn't change anything, but clones are totally different."

[quote name='fireball343'] What's my business is that this country doesn't go around taking away my right to get married to a women one day and rewrite it "Hey gays, you can marry your boyfriend, cuz this country is Politically correct" Politically correct is a bunch of crap. [/quote]

You think the country is going to take away your ability to get married if they approve it for gays?

Seriously?

Next point, please.

[quote name='fireball343'] 3. Religion is the most dominating arguement cuz it's the only Damn thing in this world that hasn't changed it's standards, with the exception of new age shity religons. [/quote]

Religion hasn't changed its standards? Get back to me the next time you put someone to death for working on the Sabbath. Religious standards change all the time. That's why the different religions have different branches.

More importantly, is as I suggested above, religion is an irrelevant factor. If you want to tell me that the church/mosque/temple you frequent will never sanction gay marriage, I say: who cares? Thankfully, religions don't get to determine our rights and laws. One more time, all together: CHURCH = NOT IN CHARGE ANYMORE.

It's a good arrangement. The government doesn't tell religion how to go about its business and vice versa.

[quote name='fireball343'] Why are we in this country? RELIGOUS FREEDOM to ESCAPE PERSACUTION DUE TO RELIGION. This country is here becasue of RELIGION. Here's the catch it does and it should, Christianity is against abortion and gay marriage to name a few. There for I want a leader who is not going to breach my beliefs and make those legal. That's why i'm a Republican, and Support George W. Bush 100%. [/quote]

Uh... somebody done homeschooled you all wrong-like, son. That doesn't sound like you understand the whole "freedom of religion" thing at all, but then I'm not sure I understand what you were even trying to say.

[quote name='fireball343'] 6. They don't have the right to marry. Marriage is not between Mr. and Mr. Queer, It's for Mr. and Mrs. Straight. I don't even want them having a civil union. All the better to decrease there status. [/quote]

Well, you've done a rock-solid job of backing this opinion up with reason this so far...

[quote name='fireball343'] 7. All US citizens are created equal, again religious, and have the right to pursue happines. They already must be happy, There GAY. They took that word and every time I hear it I get P.O. because it doesn't have a damn thing to do with happiness. [/quote]

What? That is seriously on just this side of gibberish. First of all, it isn't "All US citizens are created equal" -- it's "All men," meaning mankind. Second of all, how would you know who's happy and who isn't? Are you gay yourself, that you might have an insight into the state of mind of that particular group of people? No? Then don't presume to tell people what they're thinking. Finally ... what was the point of that exactly? I mean, besides "I don't like gay marriage because I don't like gay people." Anything constructive in there?

abates17, I'll respond to you later -- your post obviously requires a coherent response, but I think I've just killed off a few brain cells...
 
To point out: At the time of it's writing, the phrase "all men are created equal" actually referred to all white land-owning men. Not women, not poor folks, not non-white people. Let's not romanticize our founding fathers, no matter how great the temptation.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']To point out: At the time of it's writing, the phrase "all men are created equal" actually referred to all white land-owning men. Not women, not poor folks, not non-white people. Let's not romanticize our founding fathers, no matter how great the temptation.[/quote]

You mean the definition changed over time? And yet somehow the world didn't end? I am Jack's total lack of surprise.
 
[quote name='abates17'][quote name='RedvsBlue']The context is actually very fuzzy if you want to get technical. It doesn't say which of the two (spilling seed or not following orders) he was slain for. It simply says he was displeased for this and he was slain by god.[/quote]

If you want to get technical, it is the specifics which are fuzzy, not the context; the context is perfectly clear: Onan was commanded to continue his brother's line, he did not, and he was struck down by God for it. In context, it seems very clear that the disobedience is what he was punished for, not the action itself.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']In addition, if it does not extend to all people does this mean that god can, at any moment, decide what you did isn't right and strike you down even if there isn't a commandment against it? Sounds like somebody (God) is changing the rules as he goes along...[/quote]

First of all, in that time period, God was in direct contact with His people, and acted more directly in world events. Secondly, it's not "changing the rules" because Onan knew exactly what he was supposed to do, and refused to do it. Thirdly, we are under the New Covenant, as defined by Jesus in the New Testament, and thus the rules of how we should live our life are very clear. No trickery, no changing the rules as we go along, and no hypocritical ignorance of some parts of the Bible.[/quote]

I give up on you. I'm really tired of arguing symantics with you. Your simply trying to be argumentative at this point and I'm not going to play into your games.
 
They beheaded another guy, dam thats fucked up, I feel bad for the guys family, well it furthers the point that these terrorists are heartless SOBs that are not very creative in their execution methods (not to make lite of a situation), beheading is one of the worst ways too die also, hopefully if another person is captured they kill him in a less painful manner or not kill him at all. (wow this post sounds dumb, yes steal the thunder is my motto)
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I give up on you. I'm really tired of arguing symantics with you. Your simply trying to be argumentative at this point and I'm not going to play into your games.[/quote]

No, I am refuting your false claims, and I can see why you would get tired or arguing when you are so obviously incorrect. Just concede the point and we can both move on.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='PsyClerk']To point out: At the time of it's writing, the phrase "all men are created equal" actually referred to all white land-owning men.[/quote]

You mean the definition changed over time? And yet somehow the world didn't end? I am Jack's total lack of surprise.[/quote]

>sigh< No, the definition of "men" did not change over time. The only thing that changed was the privileges that the government allowed various groups. Allowing certain people to have certain privileges doesn't change the definition of "people."
 
[quote name='abates17'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='PsyClerk']To point out: At the time of it's writing, the phrase "all men are created equal" actually referred to all white land-owning men.[/quote]

You mean the definition changed over time? And yet somehow the world didn't end? I am Jack's total lack of surprise.[/quote]

>sigh< No, the definition of "men" did not change over time. The only thing that changed was the privileges that the government allowed various groups. Allowing certain people to have certain privileges doesn't change the definition of "people."[/quote]

I'm not going to argue definitions all day. I'm sure this is boring quite a few people to tears. The English language is constantly evolving. Words pick up new connotations, meanings, shadings all the time. And that allows for a more expressive language so it's all good.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I'm not going to argue definitions all day. I'm sure this is boring quite a few people to tears. The English language is constantly evolving. Words pick up new connotations, meanings, shadings all the time. And that allows for a more expressive language so it's all good.[/quote]

1. Changing the definition of "marriage" from "a union between a man and a woman" to "a union between two people" is more that a new connotation, meaning, or shading; it's a complete redefinition.

2. If you start redefining words just to be more inclusive, it minimizes and trivializes the people who were already in that group. For example, what if the government allowed anyone to become a veteran, just by filling out an application form? Now there are thousands of "veterans" walking around who have never fought in a war. You could argue that it doesn't affect the actual veterans, but it does, because it trivializes the significance of being a veteran.

If gay people argue that they shouldn't have to suffer the stigma of not being married, redefining "marriage" doesn't solve anything.
 
[quote name='abates17'][quote name='MrBadExample']I'm not going to argue definitions all day. I'm sure this is boring quite a few people to tears. The English language is constantly evolving. Words pick up new connotations, meanings, shadings all the time. And that allows for a more expressive language so it's all good.[/quote]

1. Changing the definition of "marriage" from "a union between a man and a woman" to "a union between two people" is more that a new connotation, meaning, or shading; it's a complete redefinition.

2. If you start redefining words just to be more inclusive, it minimizes and trivializes the people who were already in that group. For example, what if the government allowed anyone to become a veteran, just by filling out an application form? Now there are thousands of "veterans" walking around who have never fought in a war. You could argue that it doesn't affect the actual veterans, but it does, because it trivializes the significance of being a veteran.

If gay people argue that they shouldn't have to suffer the stigma of not being married, redefining "marriage" doesn't solve anything.[/quote]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's a dumb argument. "Veteran" is a title that is earned by military service and entitles the veteran to certain benefits. It would harm veterans because there would be less money to go around for benefits.

Being "married" is different. A gay couple and a straight couple who get married have both made the same commitment, one is just with the same sex. Nothing more, nothing less.

If a husband or wife decides that since gay people can get married, that his or her marriage doesn't mean as much, that person is an idiot and was looking for an excuse anyway.

Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that gay people can't own pets. I have a dog. Suddenly gay people fight for the right to own pets and win. Does that change how much I love my dog? Nope. Does it affect me now that the definition of "dog owner" has been broaden to include gay people? Nope.

And if anyone is offended that I used an analogy to compare being married to owning a dog, I apologize. You can substitute "cat" for "dog."
 
bread's done
Back
Top