NationStates Jolt Archive

However, in terms of marriage, that is a religious union between a man and a woman and cannot be changed. If homosexuals really want the tax breaks and monetary benefits associated with marriage maybe we can give them a civil union or something.

As argued in another of the many, many, many other threads on this topic here calling a purely legal marriage without religious attachments between man and female 'marriage' and 'civil union' between people of the same gender is discrimination and ridiculous - since they should both be equivalent from a legal standpoint.

The solution which was proposed is to either rename all non-religious marriages into unions, or to have the churches change their name for marriage into something like 'holy union' so that the differece between state-marriage and church-marriage would be extremely clear. However, the general populace would resent that.

Since most of the arguments relating to religion are primarily Christian/Catholic I used the Bible. Now look, it IS in the Bible and these passes are MUCH more clear than the story of the Sodomites. HOWEVER, just because it's in the Bible of course doesn't mean that we - on earth - should judge these sinners. Yes, homosexuality is one of the gravest of sins and will cost its sinners an eternity in hell. JUST because we know that, we have no right to treat them inhospitably for Christ teachers throughout the New Testament to love you neighbors as yourself et cetera and nowhere does he preach the condemnation of a minority (if if they're sinners). For we are not their judge, God the Father Almighty will judge them on the day of the apocalypse, not us, so it isn't our job to discriminate against them - regardless. However, in terms of marriage, that is a religious union between a man and a woman and cannot be changed. If homosexuals really want the tax breaks and monetary benefits associated with marriage maybe we can give them a civil union or something. But don't call people that are against homosexuality psycho bigots just because they disagree with you... don't you find that ironic at all? Because they have a different opinion here you are ripping on them... for discriminating against people that have a different sexual preference.

The bold part is a sticky situation, marriage withint he Church is sacred, not within the state. There is no reason to deny homosexuals marriage within the state besides the fact the Bible says not to, but considering that in the USA there is seperation of Church and state(Or, rather, there should be.) you have to remember that the Bible should have no ruling in that. Plus it's not the fact that people who are against homosexuality are disagreeing with anyone, its the fact that they treat homosexuals less than human and view them as animals. They refuse to believe science and reasoning, along with logic, that homosexuals are people too, and could possibly not be in control of their sexuality. Plus on your last sentence, just because you don't agree with someone who hate homosexuality, doesn't mean you yourself are a different sexuality then the person who hates it. You could very well be heterosexual and have indifferent feelings to homosexuality, while another heterosexual dislikes the idea of it. While a homosexual is the way they are due to their genetics and maybe due to their life experiences, a homophobe is usually, in fact, just an unaccepting bigot, or they are just uneducated and not knowledgeable of the situation, because if they weren't an unaccepting bigot and accepted homosexuality then they are educated on the subject at hand.

Please everyone, ignore anything said by Chedder Goodness, especially the threads in which he talks about England, how Christian we all are, or how we want non-English people to go back to whence they came. He is a silly moron who does not represent the rest of us Brits, and just goes to show how ignorance and fear can lead to such a pathetic and flawed state of mind.
Personally, what two people choose to do, sexually, has no impact on my life whatsoever. I shall do as I please in that respect, as should everyone. Nobody chooses their sexuality and should not expect to be subject to prejudice because of their natural predisposition. You cannot simply turn someone gay, or stop being gay, just because you see someone in a shop kissing another man or because it is taught in schools. Homosexuality has always been a part of society and it always will be. As far as I'm concerned, anybody that loves anybody is a positive thing. It's the lack of love that has caused us all to be in the shit we're in today, and it's intolerance that pushes that further.
Being gay is not natural only in the sense that you cannot reproduce. But, then again, somebody who has lost their ability to carry a child in a car accident, say, also cannot give birth. So, do we cast them out of society too? You're treading a dangerous path. And what about all the hetero parents that abuse their child, as well as the shocking divorce rate and levels of teenage pregnancy? Surely, if a child can have two loving parent figures, whether they be all male, all female or a mixture, he/she is going to have as strong a foundation as possible in life?
And another thing, this whole stereotype of Christians being intolerant in matters of homosexuality is inaccurate for many, so don't you, Chedder Goodness, start to promote that idea just because you've had a failed life and have serious issues with matters that you cannot understand, the whole of Christiandom shares your opinion. The truth is, especially in the whole "go back where they came from" bullshit, Christian society would probably spit on you. You pathetic excuse for a human being.


The only thing pathetic is your character assassinations on him, go and do it

somewhere else you PC spite filled jerk.

The only thing pathetic is your character assassinations on him, go and do it

somewhere else you PC spite filled jerk.
What ... cant handle an opposing view point? must resort to name calling?

I'm this *holds thumb and index finger about a millimeter apart* close to putting people on my ignore list.

This is simple really. Being gay is wrong.
No it's not.

For the religious group, the bible says pretty clear that being gay is a Huge sin.
We don't care what religion says. There's this thing called "seperation of Church and State". Oh, and 2/3 of the world was non-christain last time I checked.

For the patriotic, try checking documents written by our FOUNDING FATHERS!
Eh? WHICH documents? The only ones that come to mind are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independace, neither of which mentions gay marriage, to my knowledge.

A big reason for living is to reproduce and keep our species going.
Don't get me started on the wrongness of the "life is only to reproduce" thing again...oh, and the Earth has too many people already.

The more gays there are, the more a chance that a child that could cure cancer.
It's every bit as likely that a child will be the next Hitler as they wil lbe the one who find a cancer cure...waitamintue, you're saying that more gays means more chances for kids that could cure cancer(meaning that gays are good)... Isn't that going the opposite way of what you're trying to say(gays are bad)

But no, that child's life eds with this penis-to-penis CRRAP
...wha? What's that supposed to mean?



I'm actually a young Republican who's reponsible about reproduction and marriage. I, for one, take marriage, family and sex in an old fashioned and very serious manner. Jesus Christ, so shoot me in the ass if I don't want my kids watching Mtv or NYPD Blue. You think I have time to watch every single tv show and movie before they see it? These programs has a rating for a reason.
They DO, but there's still no excuse for not taking responsability in what your kids watch. See, the more people rely on...whoever censors TV..., the worse it gets, then at some point all we'll have on TV is the Weather Channel, and even that might not survive since people would be so damn ANAL about what's shown. Oh, what I'd hive to lve in Japan, where they're reasonable about these things...or Europe. Or just about anywhere BUT the US.

If anything, I'd like to see people have less kids and smaller families.
I actually agree with you on that.


Must I give out the "Founding Fathers weren't Christians" link again?

I think I will. (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/)


In closing, I hate you people that want to refuse other the rights that have been given to you. Europe is REALLY looking good right about now...

What ... cant handle an opposing view point? must resort to name calling?

I can handle his view point, his critisism was abit over the top.

Let's all remember that gay people have the same right to marry a woman that I do.

On another note, the main problem with this argument is that everyone is jumping in the middle of the argument, then making up reasons on how they got there. It is often left out whether being gay is by genetics or choice, or a combination.

Remember people that disagree with homosexual behavior are not homophobic. That would require them to be actually scared of people.

At my most recent job I worked with a couple of homosexual dudes. They were nice guys and I got along with them. Do I approve of their behavior? No. Do I approve of the heterosexual immorality? No. Am I sometime guilty of that immorality? Yes, this means I have less hate, but still disapprove of behavior.

Notice nobody could refute my post because of how right I was muwaha...



THAT may be true ... but did you know that Washington converted to Catholicism on his death bed?
lol so he randomly picked one just in case

Hedging his bets lol

I can handle his view point, his critisism was abit over the top.
Even so … you got to be more grown up as them (helps when arguing a point of view too …)

Europe is REALLY looking good right about now...

hau hau, vous aimez le fromage et aimez petit garcon beacoup, non?

In closing, I hate you people that want to refuse other the rights that have been given to you. Europe is REALLY looking good right about now...

Go there with my blessing, the muslims will have you for breakfast.

hau hau, vous aimez le fromage et aimez petit garcon beacoup, non?

My God Czech, is there no limit to your talents!

Go there with my blessing, the muslims will have you for breakfast.


you know that show of religion in public in france is against the law?


i say "damn straight!"

Even so … you got to be more grown up as them (helps when arguing a point of view too …)

point noted.

My God Czech, is there no limit to your talents!


no, i also wigger break dance *falls on floor and has a siezure*

you know that show of religion in public in france is against the law?
i say "damn straight!"

I dont, religon, even Islam should be allowed, its the zealots that should be

executed.

I dont, religon, even Islam should be allowed, its the zealots that should be

executed.


if you know france's history with religion, you would fully back that.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

You should shut up and die.

You should shut up and die.


whooooO!!! go you!


now scurry away young one.

You should shut up and die.
Way to be tolerant! [/sarcasm]

You should shut up and die.

Ah the voice of tolerance and reason.

You should shut up and die.

Woah, take a chill pill mate!

Let us engage in intelligent discourse on this topic.

Way to be tolerant! [/verbal diahreah]

that was great! [/bullshit]

Woah, take a chill pill mate!

Let us engage in intelligent discourse on this topic.


meh, intelligence... not my thing :p

if you know france's history with religion, you would fully back that.

Yeah they should be worried, although Holland apparently has one million

muslims now living in Rotterdam, could be some bloodshed soon.

I hope this girl I met, is safe over there, offers prayer for her safety.

that was great! [/bullshit]
You know some say that imitation is the highest form of flattery …

meh, intelligence... not my thing :p

Hmmm, you could just have a chill pill.
*gives Czecho-Slavakia a chill pill*

Yeah they should be worried, although Holland apparently has one million

muslims now living in Rotterdam, could be some bloodshed soon.
...

essentially, you jsut said

More then 2 Muslims outside of Arab world= bloodshed

Hmmm, you could just have a chill pill.
*gives Czecho-Slavakia a chill pill*

mmm..., wait! this IS A CHEMICAL VASECTOMY! NOOO! MY TESTICLES!!!


*Sob*

You know some say that imitation is the highest form of flattery …


you know it! ;)

...

essentially, you jsut said

huh to the rest...???

huh to the rest...???


well, you're saying that a lot of muslims in 1 place is certain to cause bloodshed.

It's sickening to look at.

It's sickening to look at.


Ahh! damnit! another to the other side!

wait, hes a one poster, i shall respond accordingly:


FUCK YOU! [/flame]

well, you're saying that a lot of muslims in 1 place is certain to cause bloodshed.

Seems to be the case with the rest of the world.

so in summary

1 million homosexual dutch santas, are invading french schools, to form islamic jihad after school clubs and get high on chilli pills

excellent news !

Seems to be the case with the rest of the world.

erm.. well:
france does fine.
Germany dos fine.
spain does fine.
italy does fine.

infact, any bloodshed is against the muslims in europe.

so in summary

1 million homosexual dutch santas, are invading french schools, all high on chilli pills

excellent !



... wtf you on, boy?

Wilf fights urge ....



resists........

gives up


YOUR MOTHER !

... wtf you on, boy?

Whatever it is, I want some.

Wilf fights urge ....



resists........

gives up


YOUR MOTHER !
hey, if you like em cold, dead, rotting, and rigor mortis, thats fine by me!

Whatever it is, I want some.
me too! damn... seriously

<flame>
I don't think it'll get anywhere in the USA, though. A creationist, fundamentalist/fascist government espousing 19th-Century moral values through a propaganda machine honed by the advertising industry of the late 20th Century, along with the atrophy of what tolerance existed in large parts of the country means any liberal agenda is likely to get shot down in flames. And by the way, I'm not anti-American. I don't hate Americans. I pity them, for the damage they will cause themselves and the world: the first time I thought it was a fluke; now Democracy has granted the people's wish that They should rule.
</flame>

Just my two pee.



whoah, strong words in that flame
:rolleyes:

you know, that was more of a statement then a flame, a flame is this:

"OH YEA? WELL I FUCKED YOUR MOM WITH A RAKE, AND STUFF HER BODY IN A PUNCHING BAG, BITCHASS!" [/flame]

thats a flame in its truest form.

Keeping it for a rainy day.eh? well, part of it is already up, want me to scratch it?

you know, that was more of a statement then a flame, a flame is this:

"OH YEA? WELL I FUCKED YOUR MOM WITH A RAKE, AND STUFF HER BODY IN A PUNCHING BAG, BITCHASS!" [/flame]

thats a flame in its truest form.

You have a hilariously revolting approach to flaming. Most people would just say something along the lines of "You're a twat", but you have to be inventive about it.

You have a hilariously revolting approach to flaming. Most people would just say something along the lines of "You're a twat", but you have to be inventive about it.


well of course i have to be, you flaming bag of cowshit. :p :D :rolleyes: :mad:

A couple of weeks ago, I was walking through the mall doing my christmas shopping and I noticed two men holding hands as they shopped, in front of everyone. I remember thinking how great it was to live somewhere that these two men felt safe enough to do that.

To be quite honest, the fact that holding hands and light kissing, regardless of genders, is ever seen as obscene, is a poor commentary on our society. Of course, in the right situation these acts could be the intro to more overtly sexual behaviour, but they are not in and of themselves overtly sexual. Eyes meeting across a crowed room could eventually lead to full intercourse, but the act of eyes meeting is not sexual. It is the viewer who interprets these acts as pornograpic, not the acts themselves. :)

well of course i have to be, you flaming bag of cowshit. :p :D :rolleyes: :mad:

*takes notes*

A couple of weeks ago, I was walking through the mall doing my christmas shopping and I noticed two men holding hands as they shopped, in front of everyone. I remember thinking how great it was to live somewhere that these two men felt safe enough to do that.

To be quite honest, the fact that holding hands and light kissing, regardless of genders, is ever seen as obscene, is a poor commentary on our society. Of course, in the right situation these acts could be the intro to more overtly sexual behaviour, but they are not in and of themselves overtly sexual. Eyes meeting across a crowed room could eventually lead to full intercourse, but the act of eyes meeting is not sexual. It is the viewer who interprets these acts as pornograpic, not the acts themselves. :)


hey, i dont think dry humps are pornographic, anyone with me! lets dryhump to bangcock! *someone hits testicles* AAAH!!

It is the viewer who interprets these acts as pornograpic, not the acts themselves. :)

So basically it's his own dirty mind? Heh, that's puts a great new spin on things...

*takes notes*


*TAKES BAG OF CHEETOES* MINE NOW! ahahaha

So basically it's his own dirty mind? Heh, that's puts a great new spin on things...


yes, hes calling abmamaasamsma or whatever the fuck his name is a porn freak, in the most radical and twisted sense of what he is saying.

so your hinting the starter of this thread (forget name !) is a latently repressed homosexual ?

hmmm nice flame


ps its bangkok, not bangcock, i think you mispelt it for comedy value

ps its bangkok, not bangcock, i think you mispelt it for comedy value


of course i did, but i could be serious about it, if thats what you really want.


really, bangkok is no laughing matter. a small island at the mouth of a chinese river, taken by the british during the shame wars over opium trade, bangkok has been opresses as a colony of the british empire, up to 1993, when bangkok finally returned to chinas rule

nice google !

ps... am I the last one to spot the thread starters name is a reversal and bad spelled version of "random llama" ???

of course i did, but i could be serious about it, if thats what you really want.
really, bangkok is no laughing matter. a small island at the mouth of a chinese river, taken by the british during the shame wars over opium trade, bangkok has been opresses as a colony of the british empire, up to 1993, when bangkok finally returned to chinas rule

lol I can just picture you sipping a martini afer you said that.

nice google !

ps... am I the last one to spot the thread starters name is a reversal and bad spelled version of "random llama" ???


google? nah, ima fucking sponge when it comes to stuff on the history channel.


dont get me started on ww1! whoo!

lol I can just picture you sipping a martini afer you said that.

actually, more like me naked with a coors light on my crotch, but that works too.

is that a gay thing ?

is that a gay thing ?

k, 1st of all, WTF?

2nd of all, no, its just me drinking beer whilst chilling my jollies in the hot... winter... kansas sun?

oh fuck, i dont know anymore.

*giggles madly* This is really fun and long and strung out all at the same time. I love you all....and not in the "I wanna get in yo pants" way. You can say it too!

*giggles madly* This is really fun and long and strung out all at the same time. I love you all....and not in the "I wanna get in yo pants" way. You can say it too!


what if we really do wnat in your pants?

what if we really do wnat in your pants?

can I reply to this one !!!

IF YOU WNAT IN YOUR PANTS, CHANGE THEM !!!

If thats true, it means evolution is wrong.

Why?

I said I thought that Adam and Eve could be symbolic, that they could represent 'people' - but not actually TWO people, and not actually in Eden...

You replied "If thats true, it means evolution is wrong".

How do you get there, from what I said?

The first 'people' could easily be a reference to a certain level of developement in the evolutionary tree that finally led to recognisable humanity.

can I reply to this one !!!

IF YOU WNAT IN YOUR PANTS, CHANGE THEM !!!



took me some time to get that one! hah!

again, once i join the convo, we veer like a drunk blind man into oncoming traffic.

i shall leave you for a couple hours. then come back full power.

Ours (I'm assuming we're all Americans) is a very sick society. I can't understand why social conservatives want to limit the ability of consenting adults to express love and affection for each other. I for one think the rental Santa is a bad influence on kids, teaching them that Christmas is about material gain, and that there is a Big Brother figure watching them at every moment, judging the moral value of their actions.

A society should be judged by how it treats its most alienated members. I have been accused of being homosexual on numerous occasions. I'm sure as hell not, but I don't feel like I have to prove that to anybody. I've also been hit on by gay guys, but I still don't resent them. We straight people should be more concerned with our own divorce rates than gay marriage. That's one of the major problems with Americans: we always have to find a scapegoat. Straights have a problem, so let's take it out on gays.

Yes, plural. Languages. Hebrew, Greek and Latin, I think. There may have been more before it was translated entirely into both Latin and German, but I just can't remember. Been waaaay too long since I studied history. Gah I'm getting old and senile!

Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

A little while later, a (corrupt) translation into Latin.

After that, you have to wait quite a while for it to be translated into any other languages.

Ours (I'm assuming we're all Americans) is a very sick society. I can't understand why social conservatives want to limit the ability of consenting adults to express love and affection for each other. I for one think the rental Santa is a bad influence on kids, teaching them that Christmas is about material gain, and that there is a Big Brother figure watching them at every moment, judging the moral value of their actions.

A society should be judged by how it treats its most alienated members. I have been accused of being homosexual on numerous occasions. I'm sure as hell not, but I don't feel like I have to prove that to anybody. I've also been hit on by gay guys, but I still don't resent them. We straight people should be more concerned with our own divorce rates than gay marriage. That's one of the major problems with Americans: we always have to find a scapegoat. Straights have a problem, so let's take it out on gays.

we're not all americans, i was definitely talking to some folks from oz on this thread last night

No its Amyl in Australia, and it does screw your head with prolonged and constant use.

Aha.. it all begins to make sense, at last.

I've already proven you wrong by going out with a maths nerd. So neener.

And some have told me I'm a "math's nerd"... which I think is supposed to be insulting... and a way of mocking someone who USES their brains...

And it's never got in the way of my 'social' life, either...

The weight of my boots alone would make that improbable. They have more steel in and on them than most cars. Pair that with the fact that I learned to defend myself against larger, more muscular agressors and am quite willing to bite, scratch and seriously damage anyone stupid enough to attack me...

OOOH, I think we need a piccy of the boots... sounds like my "New Rocks"...

Every man deserves his own harem.

The muslims have got the right idea, if one starts sulking and abusing you,

you can go find another one.

Forty is a good number

Just one of the reasons we expect Term to die single...

this has gone on long enough.

This topic is old, worn, and the original question of the topic has been forgotten.

Gay people exist, straight people exist, trans people exist, bisexual people exist, lesbians exist. Deal with it. Let them love each other.

this has gone on long enough.

This topic is old, worn, and the original question of the topic has been forgotten.

Gay people exist, straight people exist, trans people exist, bisexual people exist, lesbians exist. Deal with it. Let them love each other.

ah ha, but do Bush supporters with Brains exist ?

Experimentation doesnt really count.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, sweety.

Come on Czech, it will happen sooner or later, even if its only for a few

seconds, it sounds like you like the maths teacher.

You know, Terminalia.

For the first time in god-knows-how-long... I actually have a degree of respect for something you have posted.

I assume normal service will be resumed within the next few pages? :(

Who the hell is that?

lol your turning gay, type quickly man.

Yep... normal service was resumed.

*sigh*

Leviticus 18:22 says,
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.



Actually - I have already thoroughly disproved all of the so-called 'bible evidence'. I'm kind of tired of doing it over and over... I can do it all again, if you really want... just post them one at a time, and I'll show you where your error lies in each case.

Actually - I have already thoroughly disproved all of the so-called 'bible evidence'. I'm kind of tired of doing it over and over... I can do it all again, if you really want... just post them one at a time, and I'll show you where your error lies in each case.

Would you please? I would like to get a comprehensive source together, replete with references, citations, etc. It would make life so much easier if I could just cut and paste a good arguement for each of those abhominable verses. Damn, I just used one of their own words agains them!

I thought I was on your little ignore list Bucksnot, hehe I knew you would be

back, Ill harness you up next to Pracus, whip crack!

Yeah, whatever would trolls do without the people who keep coming back?

Would you please? I would like to get a comprehensive source together, replete with references, citations, etc. It would make life so much easier if I could just cut and paste a good arguement for each of those abhominable verses. Damn, I just used one of their own words agains them!

I'll try to locate some of them... I have a bloody fantastic one on Leviticus 18:22 that I posted just recently.... let's see if I can find that one...


Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".

A closer examination of the Hebrew would reveal that this passage has nothing to do with homosexuality, and is, in fact, a commentary on ritual uncleanness of women during menstruation.

For reference, let me just post first:

Leviticus 15:22 "And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even".

Leviticus 15:23 "And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even".

Leviticus 15:26 "Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation".

Leviticus 15:33 "And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean".

Okay - all of those set certain precedents, according to Hebrew law.

1) A woman is ritually 'unclean' during menstruation.
2) A man who contacts a woman during her menstruation, becomes ritually unclean (one of the forms of abomination).
3) A Hebrew woman was confined to a 'woman's bed' during her menstruation, rather than her marital bed.
4) Any bed or couch that a menstruating woman sat or laid on, was considered her 'woman's bed', since it was 'unclean' due to menstruation.
5) A man even sitting on a 'woman's bed' would be 'unclean' - even if he didn't have sex with her.

Okay - now let's look at the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22:

"Shakab Zakar Mishkab 'ishshah Tow'ebah"

Shakab = "to lie down, to lie down sexually, to rest"
Zakar = "Man, or male of the species"
Mishkab = "Couch or bed, act of lying down for sexual contact"
'ishshah = "Woman, wife, opposite of man"
Tow'ebah = "Unclean, ritually unclean (an abomination)".

So, Leviticus 18:22 reads: "(To lie down), (a man), on the (couch or bed), of (a woman), is (unclean)".

We already know what the 'woman's bed' is... so:

Leviticus 18:22 "For a man to lie down on the 'woman's bed' (her menstrual bed) is unclean".

I don't know when the supposition arose that this was a passage 'against' homosexuals - but I suspect it suited somebody, politically, to have it translated as such. Unfortunately, it seems to have 'stuck'.


Individual readers can check my translations through either examination of a Hebrew dictionary, or by looking through something like Strong's Concordance.

I don't know when the supposition arose that this was a passage 'against' homosexuals - but I suspect it suited somebody, politically, to have it translated as such. Unfortunately, it seems to have 'stuck'.

Careful here.. do you realize the impact of what you're saying ?
If some church has deliberately chosen to twist the words in the Bible to their own advantage, and continues to preach the lie to this day it has committed treason to G_d...

How large would you estimate the chance that this mistranslation was an accident ?

Now I have two posts!

And it's still repulsive to see two gay men kissing!

I will never watch Six Feet Under Again!!!

Taking a shit is a far cry from showing affection towards the person you love.

and, besides, taking a shit, like that, in the middle of the mall, would be illegal, as it involves indecent exposure. Showing affection towards the person you love, thankfully, is not illegal yet...but it willbe if the prudes and homophobes get their way.

I might not want to see public displays of affection...but then, I can always look the other way.

The original poster of this thread should BE A PARENT...and cover his child's eyes, or turn them away, or otherwise distract them, if they do not want their child to see something.

BE A PARENT.I still don't like the fact that you people have taken away the basic human right of public defecation and urination. All sorts can kiss, fondle and lick each other in public; mothers can shove their milk-bloated mammaries down some squalling brats throat, but I get arrested if I need to wizz against a lamppost? What a world we live in.

Careful here.. do you realize the impact of what you're saying ?
If some church has deliberately chosen to twist the words in the Bible to their own advantage, and continues to preach the lie to this day it has committed treason to G_d...

How large would you estimate the chance that this mistranslation was an accident ?

You do realize that the history of organized Christianity is rife with corruption and wrongdoing, right? Its agents are men, and thusly fallible. It's very likely that a number of officials and mere translators alike have interpretted things as they'd seen fit over the years. Deliberately mistranslated? Who's to say? Accidentally? Perhaps. The sin is in whether or not positions are revised when new facts are brought to light, in a failure to correct the mistake.

I still don't like the fact that you people have taken away the basic human right of public defecation and urination. All sorts can kiss, fondle and lick each other in public; mothers can shove their milk-bloated mammaries down some squalling brats throat, but I get arrested if I need to wizz against a lamppost? What a world we live in.

Quite frankly, it seems to be a matter of decency in public exposure, in which exceptions are made. Any place where urinating in public would be problematic you would likely find a toilet nearby. Thusly, exposing oneself for such a reason is not necessary, and more importantly, such an act constitutes a biohazard. This latter reason will ensure that public defecation will remain illegal regardless of shifting cultural attitudes.

Mothers nursing are an exception...it is both a matter of necessity (it's much easier to care for an infant without having to run it to a bathroom stall for feeding) and an exception resulting from the value citizens of this nation place on motherhood. Displays of modest public affection, those without exposure of the pink bits, are allowed because they involve no indecent anatomical exposure at all like your other scenarios. To quote a commonly known jingle, "One of these things is not like the others..."

Seems pretty simple, really, as long as our society has problems with public nudity.

I blame Willl and Grace.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!


You can ban anything you like. It doesn't stop people from doing it, now does it?

actually, more like me naked with a coors light on my crotch, but that works too.

Kinky...

I hope the light doesnt burn your pubes off.

*giggles madly* This is really fun and long and strung out all at the same time. I love you all....and not in the "I wanna get in yo pants" way. You can say it too!

Yes you would probably even kiss Saddam!

Why?
I said I thought that Adam and Eve could be symbolic, that they could represent 'people' - but not actually TWO people, and not actually in Eden...
You replied "If thats true, it means evolution is wrong".
How do you get there, from what I said?
The first 'people' could easily be a reference to a certain level of developement in the evolutionary tree that finally led to recognisable humanity.

So Adam and Eve were apes? lol

I doupt it.

The human man and woman is the pinnacle of Gods

creation, his finest works.

So Adam and Eve were apes? lol

I doupt it.

The human man and woman is the pinnacle of Gods

creation, his finest works.
watch me disprove you


my god is better than your god


there, go cry to your mommy

You do realize that the history of organized Christianity is rife with corruption and wrongdoing, right? Its agents are men, and thusly fallible. It's very likely that a number of officials and mere translators alike have interpretted things as they'd seen fit over the years. Deliberately mistranslated? Who's to say? Accidentally? Perhaps. The sin is in whether or not positions are revised when new facts are brought to light, in a failure to correct the mistake.

We both know this mistranslation will never be fixed.

Don't give the church that much credit >_>

Aha.. it all begins to make sense, at last.


This was my observation from other people sniffing it alot, and discussions

with other people who thought the same thing, one of these people was a

doctor, who said continuous use of the stuff, amyl, could cause minor brain

damage, loss of seratone etc.

watch me disprove you
my god is better than your god
there, go cry to your mommy

whatever.

Would you please? I would like to get a comprehensive source together, replete with references, citations, etc. It would make life so much easier if I could just cut and paste a good arguement for each of those abhominable verses. Damn, I just used one of their own words agains them!

Spoken like a true Christian hater.

Yeah, whatever would trolls do without the people who keep coming back?

Sounds like little Anbar wants to be harnessed to, I'll put you next to Bottle,

watch out, she bites sometimes.

And some have told me I'm a "math's nerd"... which I think is supposed to be insulting... and a way of mocking someone who USES their brains...
And it's never got in the way of my 'social' life, either...

Yes, I bet your the star at the local nerd ball for wedgie victims. lol

Sounds like little Anbar wants to be harnessed to, I'll put you next to Bottle,

watch out, she bites sometimes.

Actually, I believe that I married Bottle in a brief ceremony on these forums months ago, and I don't mind being bitten. As you've no doubt noticed, Term, I take you less seriously than Snubis, and won't address your trolling idiocy on any issue.

On the other hand, your idiocy itself remains fair game.

Just one of the reasons we expect Term to die single...

I dont think so, just because I dont share and believe the PC mantra on here,

doesnt mean I will die single.

There are two girls I could hitch up with next year, but there has to be more

than just sexual attraction.

Thats why harems are good.

[QUOTE=Anbar]Actually, I believe that I married Bottle in a brief ceremony on these forums months ago, and I don't mind being bitten.

lol what do you see in her?

As you've no doubt noticed, Term, I take you less seriously than Snubis, and won't address your trolling idiocy on any issue.
On the other hand, your idiocy itself remains fair game.

Ohh diddums, have a cupcake.

why is this tread still going.. the orginal poster made such an outlandish obviously pointless groundless claim revealing his obvious ignorance. YEt people continue to discuss on this thread .. its been up for like a week already. LET IT DIE

Whatever helps you sleep at night, sweety.

It doesnt Grave, and I sleep like a baby.

why is this tread still going.. the orginal poster made such an outlandish obviously pointless groundless claim revealing his obvious ignorance. YEt people continue to discuss on this thread .. its been up for like a week already. LET IT DIE

Well I happen to agree strongly with the original poster, and I say, let it live!

I still don't like the fact that you people have taken away the basic human right of public defecation and urination. All sorts can kiss, fondle and lick each other in public; mothers can shove their milk-bloated mammaries down some squalling brats throat, but I get arrested if I need to wizz against a lamppost? What a world we live in.

I dont know about public defacation, thats a little extreme, and if I saw some

joker indulging himself in a dump in the middle of my local shopping centre,

he would have his face rubbed in it, then booted through a shop window,

also mothers publically breast feeding, theres nothing wrong with that, and


should be encouraged, mums milk is the best, it carries all her antibodies with

it to help the kid grow strong, something formula milk cant provide.

Wissing against lamposts, what are you a fricking dog?

Go behind a hedge at least, you lazy turd.

Go eat some shellfish godboy.

It doesnt Grave, and I sleep like a baby.
What, you shit your nappy and wake up screaming?

=Anbar]

Thusly, exposing oneself for such a reason is not necessary, and more importantly, such an act constitutes a biohazard. This latter reason will ensure that public defecation will remain illegal regardless of shifting cultural attitudes.

Interesting, so you dont have a problem really, morally, with someone taking a

dump in public, its just the 'bio hazard' factor, that alarms`you.

And your reference to 'shifting cultural attitudes' seems to say you think alot

of other people wouldnt mind either, if it wasnt for the 'bio hazard'?

What, you shit your nappy and wake up screaming?

No dickhead.

No dickhead.
Well, most babys I've seen sleep like that. So sorry if I misunderstood your wonderful analogy.
Have you ever owned a goldfish?

Spoken like a true Christian hater.

So I believe that misinformation exists--a very large, very important source of misinformation. I want to save people from not knowing what they are talking about, from being lied to, whether purposefully and accidently. And I HATE them? Boy, you really do need to work on your definitions.

thought I'd check on this thread.....something about defecating in public now?


*looks around*


ooookay

Yes, I bet your the star at the local nerd ball for wedgie victims. lol

Is Termy going off again on "HAHA you're smart, I used to pick on you in school! Now...I'm...really just a sad little man, who's only happiness comes from bragging about my useless rugby skills and insulting people over the internet <emo tear>"

Is Termy going off again on "HAHA you're smart, I used to pick on you in school! Now...I'm...really just a sad little man, who's only happiness comes from bragging about my useless rugby skills and insulting people over the internet <emo tear>"


come on, don't taunt the trolls...they bite people, you know.

I dont think so, just because I dont share and believe the PC mantra on here,

doesnt mean I will die single.

There are two girls I could hitch up with next year, but there has to be more

than just sexual attraction.

Thats why harems are good.

Not for the sexually abused women in them.

How can you claim to be holy and all knowing, or that your god is, when you yourself are so ignorant?

[QUOTE=Nycadaemon]Well, most babys I've seen sleep like that. So sorry if I misunderstood your wonderful analogy.

You mean you let them scream all night in their own shit... dude dont ever

become a parent, you sound hopeless.


Have you ever owned a goldfish?

Yes, they drink their own piss, do you?

Is Termy going off again on "HAHA you're smart, I used to pick on you in school! Now...I'm...really just a sad little man, who's only happiness comes from bragging about my useless rugby skills and insulting people over the internet <emo tear>"

lol the irony, of course your not one for insulting people over the net are you.

Little, well if you think 6 ft + and 104 kg is little, um..

Sad, couldnt be much happier actually.

Rugby... its League, try with your sad little brain to one day work out the

difference, helpful hint for Gonad, Rugby is played with 15 players, League is

played with 13, do try some research, googles at your fingertips, if it helps.

Oh, and I never picked on anyone in school, except a few bullys.

lol the irony, of course your not one for insulting people over the net are you.

Little, well if you think 6 ft + and 104 kg is little, um..

Sad, couldnt be much happier actually.

Rugby... its League, try with your sad little brain to one day work out the

difference, helpful hint for Gonad, Rugby is played with 15 players, League is

played with 13, do try some research, googles at your fingertips, if it helps.

Oh, and I never picked on anyone in school, except a few bullys.

Why do you feel the need to assure others of your happiness? (as well as your height, weight, skills, etc.)

=Pracus So I believe that misinformation exists--a very large, very important source of misinformation.

Yes, its called PC.

Why do you feel the need to assure others of your happiness? (as well as your height, weight, skills, etc.)

I was just correcting a needless fabrication, sorry if that bothers you.

By the way, for all those trying to prove their masculinity, rugby or football, is the gayest sport known to man.

People running around in tights, jumping each other, chasing after a leather bag.

come on, don't taunt the trolls...they bite people, you know.

lol have you ever considered the possibility, of being a troll yourself?

Sorry theres no room under my bridge, since Pracus and Bottle moved in,

you will have to go find your own.

I was just correcting a needless fabrication, sorry if that bothers you.

My first reaction is to over-analyze your "corrections" in some sort of Freudian manner, which would start yet another annoying hijacking of this thread....Thankfully, I refrained, because no one wants to see that, right?

By the way, for all those trying to prove their masculinity, rugby or football, is the gayest sport known to man.
People running around in tights, jumping each other, chasing after a leather bag.

You really dont know much about masculinity or league for that matter, by

the sounds of it.

It also sounds like your extremely threatened by males who partake in

aggressive sports that involve painful body contact.

I dont see how you made the gay connection either, Ive played league for

years, and met very few homosexuals in it.

Try Ballet .

My first reaction is to over-analyze your "corrections" in some sort of Freudian manner, which would start yet another annoying hijacking of this thread....Thankfully, I refrained, because no one wants to see that, right?

Your correct, over analysing is sometimes just that.

You really dont know much about masculinity or league for that matter, by

the sounds of it.

It also sounds like your extremely threatened by males who partake in

aggressive sports that involve painful body contact.

I dont see how you made the gay connection either, Ive played league for

years, and met very few homosexuals in it.

Try Ballet .

I'm not threatened by males who partake in aggressive sports, I've dated a QB. And believe me, he wasn't THAT manly. Slightly on the feminine side, and a bad kisser.

I have tried ballet, for 10 years, and did you know most footballers take ballet or some other form of dance to strengthen their core?

Terminalia, can you introduce me to Guy Sebastian? I hear he is one of your kind.

=IndiruI'm not threatened by males who partake in aggressive sports,

So why the comment on them, that their trying to prove their

masculinity?

Believe me, its no joke out there.


I've dated a QB. And believe me, he wasn't THAT manly. Slightly on the feminine side, and a bad kisser.

Yeah well, he was only a Quarterback, thats what QB stands for isnt it?

QB's are pretty small arent they, like our halfbacks in League.

Sorry Im not that big on Grid Iron, although I dont mind watching it.


I have tried ballet, for 10 years, and did you know most footballers take ballet or some other form of dance to strengthen their core?

Im not knocking Ballet, it wouldnt be easy, but believe me, League is very

hard.

And lol I cant see too many Rugby League players doing ballet, some

probably have, most do aerobics.

Terminalia, can you introduce me to Guy Sebastian? I hear he is one of your kind.

What makes you think that?

I dont mind Guy, but Im not that into him.

I am not commenting on their masculinity because I am threatened by them, only because I find it amusing the emphasis put on football when, you gotta admit it, there's not a lot to it.

I am not commenting on their masculinity because I am threatened by them, only because I find it amusing the emphasis put on football when, you gotta admit it, there's not a lot to it.

That emphasis could be put on something much more valuable -- LIKE EDUCATION!! *holds back a rant*

That emphasis could be put on something much more valuable -- LIKE EDUCATION!! *holds back a rant*

I was hinting at that, but I didn't want to insult Term's lack of intelligence.

Yes, its called PC.

And here we go again. Way to completely avoid my point (but then what's new there?).

You know good and well I ws referring to the incorrect translations of the Bible. You know, that one and only source you get your information from?

I am not commenting on their masculinity because I am threatened by them, only because I find it amusing the emphasis put on football when, you gotta admit it, there's not a lot to it.

Spoken like a true ignoramus, what the hell would you know little girl, you

have never been in it.

Interesting, so you dont have a problem really, morally, with someone taking a

dump in public, its just the 'bio hazard' factor, that alarms`you.

And your reference to 'shifting cultural attitudes' seems to say you think alot

of other people wouldnt mind either, if it wasnt for the 'bio hazard'?

Hmm, you actually wish to bring up a valid point? Alright, I'll explain. Quite frankly, the biohazard component trumps all. Human waste is unclean, and spreads disease. That will not change. Similarly, it makes a mess and damages property - that, too, will not change. My reference to "shifting cultural attitudes" is a nod to my opinions on public nudity, with which I do not have a problem, save that society at this point cannot handle it. Should that change, it would still come down the the biohazard factor, and as such, defecating in public could never be allowed.

I have no problem with the nudity component...but the waste problem will (and should) always be an insurmountable obstacle for people like Lycadaemon who wish to defecate in public.

I was hinting at that, but I didn't want to insult Term's lack of intelligence.

hah, I would back my braincells over your snobberish little ones any day.

That emphasis could be put on something much more valuable -- LIKE EDUCATION!! *holds back a rant*

Um how much frickin education do you need?

Is that all have in your life nerdling?

You know good and well I ws referring to the incorrect translations of the Bible. You know, that one and only source you get your information from?

Well to be honest, I sometimes try google, and various encyclopedias as well,

but holy books, especially my Bible, seem to be the best guides to life.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

That's funny, I was just thinking the same thing about heterosexual couples, and how it's perfectly all right for them to round second base in public.

*laughs hysterically at the prudish intolerant retrograde mastodon*

Good word usage, I congratulate you on forming a coherent and humorous insult without including any curse words.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive14.jpg

That's not a friggin hard question to answer... you simply reply "because they like eachother"

*GASP* OH MY GOD :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Anbar]Hmm, you actually wish to bring up a valid point? Alright, I'll explain. Quite frankly, the biohazard component trumps all. Human waste is unclean, and spreads disease. That will not change. Similarly, it makes a mess and damages property - that, too, will not change.

Agreed, but also the crassness of some sick individual committing an act like

this has to be taken into account also, I dont see what the publics objection

to nudity, has to do with this, unless the jerk was also naked whilst indulging

in this public dump.

My reference to "shifting cultural attitudes" is a nod to my opinions on public nudity, with which I do not have a problem, save that society at this point cannot handle it. Should that change, it would still come down the the biohazard factor, and as such, defecating in public could never be allowed.

Neverless the act is still obscene in itself, showing little regard for peoples

sensibilitys, especially childrens who have just come out of toilet training,

would they then view this person as a baby?

There is more to it, than just bio hazard, which is of course extremely

important, the west is probably the most sanitised group of people in the

worlds history, the consequences of which if we werent, would be of course

devasting.


I have no problem with the nudity component...

I do, I dont think its any great deal to walk around naked, for one, it would

get very boring seeing so much skin after a while, lets not forget the old

wrinklys and obese people, Ahhh too much flesh!

Your imagination would be bankrupt when it came to beautiful women, and

what about winter, brrrrrrrrrrrrr


but the waste problem will (and should) always be an insurmountable obstacle for people like Lycadaemon who wish to defecate in public.

Didnt your mummy and daddy teach you to use the pottie properly

Lycadaemon?

Hey everyone, im back.


this hasnt gotten a whole lotmore,has it/.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive14.jpg


YHEY! A PWIZE HAW HAW! yehy... hay hay... nyahk.

essentialy, we are trying to stop the overflow of spewing diahreah from fundamentalist's mouthes.

*nice entrance, hah...*

Wow. I come back and what is the first thing I see? Czech being an ignorant kid again. Joy. Do you have a compulsion to grief or do you do it just to amuse yourself?

Well to be honest, I sometimes try google, and various encyclopedias as well,

but holy books, especially my Bible, seem to be the best guides to life.


And it doesn't concern you at all that there are direct contradictions and obvious mistranslations in that book?

Pracus, do you happen to have a list of the inconsistencies? I like to look at those ^^. It's interesting to see how much misinterpretation has affected the Bible. Helps me out too.

YHEY! A PWIZE HAW HAW! yehy... hay hay... nyahk.

Dont laugh checko, you could be like that one day.

And it doesn't concern you at all that there are direct contradictions and obvious mistranslations in that book?

No, the Bibles main message is what concerns me the most.

By the way, for all those trying to prove their masculinity, rugby or football, is the gayest sport known to man.

People running around in tights, jumping each other, chasing after a leather bag.

More War Heros, Senators, Presidents, CEOs, and other such leaders played football in high school than were gay in high school.

Thus Football is the greatest sport ever known to man.

And Gayness should only be used when referring to "France".

Dont laugh checko, you could be like that one day.

don'tyou have to be born that way?

nice google !

ps... am I the last one to spot the thread starters name is a reversal and bad spelled version of "random llama" ???

It's not meant to be spelt "random", it's meant to be spelt "randam" or "Ran Dam Llama".

What other words are built from my name?

don'tyou have to be born that way?

A car accident, or some other brain damaging accident, could put you in a

similar position to him, not necessarily mongoloid, but viewed by the general

public as slow, and to be pitied.

In other words, dont ever take your present condition for

granted, and be kind to others who are like this, because one day, you could

join their ranks.

No, the Bibles main message is what concerns me the most.

Awee Term, you disappoint me. The Bible has no single main message. It's a compendium or library of texts, records, poetry and stories that document the rise of Judeism and the lives of many of what the many authors though were more influential people and their laws and the spinoff cult of Judeism, Christianity. The very word Bible MEANS library.

The messages vary by chronology and author. My personal favorites being the Songs of Soloman. He was quiet the passionate poet, was Solomon. Not bad for an uncivilized king of a xenophobic, demi-nomadic people that worshipped an angry, jealous war god. Just proves that even through the mists of time and history, people will still surprise you pleasantly.

[QUOTE=Booslandia]Awee Term, you disappoint me. The Bible has no single main message. It's a compendium or library of texts, records, poetry and stories that document the rise of Judeism and the lives of many of what the many authors though were more influential people and their laws and the spinoff cult of Judeism, Christianity. The very word Bible MEANS library.

Well for me , it means Gods word, which is truth and love, and understanding.

The rest of the Bible is merely showcase for Jesus word.



The messages vary by chronology and author. My personal favorites being the Songs of Soloman. He was quiet the passionate poet, was Solomon. Not bad for an uncivilized king of a xenophobic, demi-nomadic people that worshipped an angry, jealous war god. Just proves that even through the mists of time and history, people will still surprise you pleasantly.

Solomon, was far from uncivilised, you shouldnt judge anyone in a period of

time by the level of technology they live by, in regards to what you think

advanced is.

Would you call Hitler or Saddam civilised?

As`for the Xenophobia, a inncorrect observation and undeserved, their were

no immaginary enemies, they were very real, and a constant threat to

Solomons people.

The 'angry jealous war god' was only protecting his chosen people, in very

dangerous warlike times.

Demi nomadic, some of them yes, but alot by them, by then, had settled

down into towns and cities.

[QUOTE]

Well for me , it means Gods word, which is truth and love, and understanding.

The rest of the Bible is merely showcase for Jesus word.





Solomon, was far from uncivilised, you shouldnt judge anyone in a period of

time by the level of technology they live by, in regards to what you think

advanced is.

Would you call Hitler or Saddam civilised?

As`for the Xenophobia, a inncorrect observation and undeserved, their were

no immaginary enemies, they were very real, and a constant threat to

Solomons people.

The 'angry jealous war god' was only protecting his chosen people, in very

dangerous warlike times.

Demi nomadic, some of them yes, but alot by them, by then, had settled

down into towns and cities.


I stand corrected on the civilized vs uncivilized bit then. Though I have to say that Adolph Hitler was civilized. Crazy and psychotic... but civilized.

However, PERSONAL definitions and personally derived messages, no matter how personally relevant cannot be substituted for actual meanings and messages when used in the manner you are using the Bible in this discussion. If it WAS relevant and valid, then EVERYone would be bringing a different message or set of messages to the table and all would have to be recognized as true and relevant to the discussion, which would in the end utterly destroy any power the book or any random passage from it had.

So rather than arguing that the message of the Bible was any one thing that happens to suit you, it might be better to say "my personal feeling is..." rather than invalidating a perfectly viable if highly disputed treasury of ancient history and wisdom by transferring your own personal convictions onto it.

No, the Bibles main message is what concerns me the most.

Oh, you mean the one's about loving your neighbor's as yourself and not judging others? And the one's about we all have problems and should worry about our own before we worry about what our neighbor is doing?

[QUOTE=Booslandia]I stand corrected on the civilized vs uncivilized bit then. Though I have to say that Adolph Hitler was civilized. Crazy and psychotic... but civilized.


I disagree, he was a barbarian.

However, PERSONAL definitions and personally derived messages, no matter how personally relevant cannot be substituted for actual meanings and messages when used in the manner you are using the Bible in this discussion. If it WAS relevant and valid, then EVERYone would be bringing a different message or set of messages to the table and all would have to be recognized as true and relevant to the discussion, which would in the end utterly destroy any power the book or any random passage from it had.
So rather than arguing that the message of the Bible was any one thing that happens to suit you, it might be better to say "my personal feeling is..." rather than invalidating a perfectly viable if highly disputed treasury of ancient history and wisdom by transferring your own personal convictions onto it.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Oh, you mean the one's about loving your neighbor's as yourself and not judging others? And the one's about we all have problems and should worry about our own before we worry about what our neighbor is doing?

Loving one another doesnt mean loving their sins Pracus.

[QUOTE]


I disagree, he was a barbarian.



Lets just agree to disagree.

I can agree to disagree on the Bible. Hitler? No. He was amazingly civilized. BUT, civilzation does not save one from being or becoming a ravening, insane murderer. I often think that the more civilized we become, the more prone we are to doing the most inhumane and horrific of things. And we become better at it too.

Loving one another doesnt mean loving their sins Pracus.

No, but loving someone does mean that you let them make their own mistakes sometimes. You on the other hand try to force your own beliefs into other people's lives. Doesn't that totally contradict free will to you? Oh wait, that would be a logical conclusion . . .

you know, people really really shouldnt involve the bible in any of these political discussions... isnt calling down god upon someone a sin in itself?

Kinky...

I hope the light doesnt burn your pubes off.


light?


coors light... as in the beer?


and... wow...


wierd...

you know, people really really shouldnt involve the bible in any of these political discussions... isnt calling down god upon someone a sin in itself?
It is indeed. Anyone who doubts that need only look to the tale of Jesus' temptation in the desert. According to the scripture, Satan tried to get Jesus to jump off of a cliff, quoting a line of scripture which said that God would not let the Messiah be harmed. Jesus replied with scripture, saying that to test the Lord is a sin.
For those of us who are believers, what it all boils down to is this: trying to invoke God at your whim is like saying you control Him, and odds are your wish will not be granted.

trying to invoke God at your whim is like saying you control Him, and odds are your wish will not be granted.



Im not sure about the rest, considering im not exactly the religous type, but i agree with that in a certain manner.


you know that satans trident is from the god of sea, zeus, and the pentacle is a symbol of the sacred woman? most religous symbols are stolen from other religions.

hey, ive even talked to a Jesuit missionary, adear friend of my mom, about this.

hes in africa right now, anyone mind sending him money?

Careful here.. do you realize the impact of what you're saying ?
If some church has deliberately chosen to twist the words in the Bible to their own advantage, and continues to preach the lie to this day it has committed treason to G_d...

How large would you estimate the chance that this mistranslation was an accident ?
You do realize that the history of organized Christianity is rife with corruption and wrongdoing, right? Its agents are men, and thusly fallible. It's very likely that a number of officials and mere translators alike have interpretted things as they'd seen fit over the years. Deliberately mistranslated? Who's to say? Accidentally? Perhaps. The sin is in whether or not positions are revised when new facts are brought to light, in a failure to correct the mistake.

I do realize that, which is why I included the 'continues to preach the lie to this day' bit. As is shown by e.g. this topic many take the translation of the bible literally and as an absolute, while focussing specifically at some passages. If a new and revised translation is published with the support of the church I would expect that they are careful to examine those passages that cause so much argument. After all, if Christians are asked to believe something is wrong against so much opposition you'd better be sure that G_d really wants them to.

If then another translation than is printed in the current bible is shown to be linguistically far more plausible, as this one seems to be, they should adopt it or at least make it known instead of pretending the mistranslation is dogma. Failure to do so is letting 'their flock' do things that G_d doesn't want them to - which is treason. Or serving 'Satan' if you prefer...

(Which is basically what you were also saying ;-))

I do realize that, which is why I included the 'continues to preach the lie to this day' bit. As is shown by e.g. this topic many take the translation of the bible literally and as an absolute, while focussing specifically at some passages. If a new and revised translation is published with the support of the church I would expect that they are careful to examine those passages that cause so much argument. After all, if Christians are asked to believe something is wrong against so much opposition you'd better be sure that G_d really wants them to.

If then another translation than is printed in the current bible is shown to be linguistically far more plausible, as this one seems to be, they should adopt it or at least make it known instead of pretending the mistranslation is dogma. Failure to do so is letting 'their flock' do things that G_d doesn't want them to - which is treason. Or serving 'Satan' if you prefer...

(Which is basically what you were also saying ;-))


ive got a really good question:why do you say g_d and not god?

cause, really, thats just dumb. its not like your saying his name in vein.

ive got a really good question:why do you say g_d and not god?

cause, really, thats just dumb. its not like your saying his name in vein.

Good Question, but it just further shows his bible thumping love....

Good Question, but it just further shows his bible thumping love....


yea, thats kinda true... i dont like people involving religion in politics... its like involving world disease with cooking shows... not pretty.

Good Question, but it just further shows his bible thumping love....

Look who's speakin.

g_d is a way for people to shamelessly lie i guess :)

g_d is a way for people to shamelessly lie i guess :)


aha, good one.

Of course, it's not like that's going to actually stop anybody...
They'll quote a different passage back at you.

indeed, they have an emergency bible on their belt incase an intelligent conversation goes beyond their grasp.



hey, why havent any of the anti-gaysbashed you yet?

Look who's speakin.


Hey, just because I'm a hardcore conservative doesn't mean I'm no fing bible thumper!!!

I'm just a fan of those values with more a scientific approach to that religous crap...

ive got a really good question:why do you say g_d and not god?

cause, really, thats just dumb. its not like your saying his name in vein.

Force of habit. Several of my Jewish friends get upset if you write out names like God or Jahweh instead of using G_d or JHWH. Maybe that's silly of them, but since writing it differently is a small effort that doesn't hurt anyone I do it.
If people here prefer I didn't I will be happy to adapt.

Force of habit. Several of my Jewish friends get upset if you write out names like God or Jahweh instead of using G_d or JHWH. Maybe that's silly of them, but since writing it differently is a small effort that doesn't hurt anyone I do it.
If people here prefer I didn't I will be happy to adapt.

Jewish People have friends?

Jewish People have friends?

Scientific response: I observe the answer to this statement to be yes.
Biblical answer: well - you seem to be the expert on this subject. Did the jew Jesus have friends ?

Scientific response: I observe the answer to this statement to be yes.
Biblical answer: well - you seem to be the expert on this subject. Did the jew Jesus have friends ?

It was a joke, just a joke....

Force of habit. Several of my Jewish friends get upset if you write out names like God or Jahweh instead of using G_d or JHWH. Maybe that's silly of them, but since writing it differently is a small effort that doesn't hurt anyone I do it.
If people here prefer I didn't I will be happy to adapt.


how in the hell could saying god offend a jewish person? they worship the same god we do, just dont believe jesus was a savior.

It was a joke, just a joke....

a kinda bad one...

a kinda bad one...

Can't blame me, it's late and I missed Jay Leno tonight =<

Can't blame me, it's late and I missed Jay Leno tonight =<

err, yes i can, and jay leno blows dick, thats why hes quitting.

err, yes i can, and jay leno blows dick, thats why hes quitting.


Hey! God Damn it! Monday Night's are always the best on Jay Leno...

Hey! God Damn it! Monday Night's are always the best on Jay Leno...


headlines?


pff, thats old and dumb now...


"ey, look at me! i got a big chin and 78 cars! ehey, im a fucking retard! look at the black pothead on guitar"

"blackpothead: ohhohoho, im fucking clueless! *puff*"

headlines?


pff, thats old and dumb now...


"ey, look at me! i got a big chin and 78 cars! ehey, im a fucking retard! look at the black pothead on guitar"

"blackpothead: ohhohoho, im fucking clueless! *puff*"

WOW....

WOW....
i know. i couldve saved 15000 hours of peoples lives over the past 11 years.

Isn't Conan O'brien replacing him??

Isn't Conan O'brien replacing him??


yes, and thank god for that.


masturbating bear... hah...

basically, i agree with both arguments. marriage is should be kept for man and woman. but times are changing. still. people are becoming too liberal. the solution: it's time to go back to chivalry, tradition, ethics, morals and values. 'you can ban gay marriages but you can't ban two people from loving.'--my answer to that: gays think that the world is too closed minded. that the world is too narrow for change. but why can't they open their mind to CHANGING for the world? the majority will always win. that's democracy. okay. i don't make sense....

basically, i agree with both arguments. marriage is should be kept for man and woman. but times are changing. still. people are becoming too liberal. the solution: it's time to go back to chivalry, tradition, ethics, morals and values. 'you can ban gay marriages but you can't ban two people from loving.'--my answer to that: gays think that the world is too closed minded. that the world is too narrow for change. but why can't they open their mind to CHANGING for the world? the majority will always win. that's democracy. okay. i don't make sense....


chivalry? are youfucking serious? whoah...

how in the hell could saying god offend a jewish person? they worship the same god we do, just dont believe jesus was a savior.

I said upset, not offended. IIRC it was because there is a commandment in Deuteronomy forbidding to erase His name - which of course will happen often if you just write it down everywhere.
And yes, one could argue that "God" is not a name, but I saw no point in starting a debate over something that harms noone.

And on my 'bible thumping love': I have nothing against the Bible as a guide to living. I just object to people that think it necessary to take a human made translation of it literally and use that as an excuse to call and treat others as inferior, use it as an argument on scientific issues etc.

I said upset, not offended. IIRC it was because there is a commandment in Deuteronomy forbidding to erase His name - which of course will happen often if you just write it down everywhere.
And yes, one could argue that "God" is not a name, but I saw no point in starting a debate over something that harms noone.

And on my 'bible thumping love': I have nothing against the Bible as a guide to living. I just object to people that think it necessary to take a human made translation of it literally and use that as an excuse to call and treat others as inferior, use it as an argument on scientific issues etc.



ohh, i took biblethumping in the completely wrong way...

die other amamamamamlala dude!

die other amamamamamlala dude!
You do know that "Alma Mater" is:
a. female (allright - I'm not)
b. a way to refer to one's university ;-) ?

You do know that "Alma Mater" is:
a. female (allright - I'm not)
b. a way to refer to one's university ;-) ?
not you, the other guy thats name is random llama backwards

not you, the other guy thats name is random llama backwards


If my name was "Random Llama" backwards, it would be "Amall Modnar".

Note that I am "Amall Madnar"!

I am MAD! NOT MOD!

And I won't QUOTE "DIE" UNQUOTE.

if you go from r to a its randam llama

I can agree to disagree on the Bible. Hitler? No. He was amazingly civilized. BUT, civilzation does not save one from being or becoming a ravening, insane murderer. I often think that the more civilized we become, the more prone we are to doing the most inhumane and horrific of things. And we become better at it too.

No Hitler was just a thug, pure and simple, he had a gift for organisation, and

realised that by controlling the streets he controlled the masses, thus

controlling the state.

He was apassionate orator and truly believed in what he was saying, but I

think he was more in it for the power and the glory than to help out his fellow

german.

His last orders to Borman and Donitz were to fight to the last man woman

and child, and reduce Germany to ashes, while he cowered in a bunker.

Hitler civilised, about as civilised as your local skinhead.

if you go from r to a its randam llama


Or "Ran Dam Llama"

Or "A Mallard Man"

Or "Randall Mama"

Or "An All Mad Ram"

I love Anagrams! w00t!

light?


coors light... as in the beer?


and... wow...


wierd...

Sorry, to me it sounded as if you were saying you were lying on the floor

naked with some kind of burning hot light on your genitals, I just thought you

were into masochism, sorry my bad.

No, but loving someone does mean that you let them make their own mistakes sometimes. You on the other hand try to force your own beliefs into other people's lives. Doesn't that totally contradict free will to you? Oh wait, that would be a logical conclusion . . .

Um no, I dont force my beliefs on to other people, if they want to talk about

the good lord, Im happy to oblige of course.

Um no, I dont force my beliefs on to other people, if they want to talk about

the good lord, Im happy to oblige of course.




and on and on and on and on...

Dear God, please make it stop! AHHHHHHH!!!! :eek:

and on and on and on and on...

Dear God, please make it stop! AHHHHHHH!!!! :eek:

god won't make it stop, s/he will only encourage it.

Sorry, to me it sounded as if you were saying you were lying on the floor

naked with some kind of burning hot light on your genitals, I just thought you

were into masochism, sorry my bad.


...


lmfao.

Um no, I dont force my beliefs on to other people, if they want to talk about

the good lord, Im happy to oblige of course.


You don't force your beliefs on other people?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You don't force your beliefs on other people but YOU WON'T LET GAYS GET MARRIED?!?

Term, you aren't just a bigot and twit. You are the dumbest fuck on the face of the earth.

I do realize that, which is why I included the 'continues to preach the lie to this day' bit. As is shown by e.g. this topic many take the translation of the bible literally and as an absolute, while focussing specifically at some passages. If a new and revised translation is published with the support of the church I would expect that they are careful to examine those passages that cause so much argument. After all, if Christians are asked to believe something is wrong against so much opposition you'd better be sure that G_d really wants them to.

If then another translation than is printed in the current bible is shown to be linguistically far more plausible, as this one seems to be, they should adopt it or at least make it known instead of pretending the mistranslation is dogma. Failure to do so is letting 'their flock' do things that G_d doesn't want them to - which is treason. Or serving 'Satan' if you prefer...

(Which is basically what you were also saying ;-))

I figured it was either sarcasm or niavete, and erred on the side of the latter. You're right, churches ought to change were such a major flaw to be discovered, and undoubtedly, some would. Others would be too mired in dogma - see people such as Defensor Fidei who cite long dead Church officials rather than Christ in their explanations of their "Christian" beliefs (granted, some say he's a troll, but there are plenty of real people like that).

lets get this to page 100 then stop.

*add Terminalia to ignore list*

I should have done that ages ago.

*add Terminalia to ignore list*

I should have done that ages ago.
but you miss out on soo much!

[QUOTE]

Agreed, but also the crassness of some sick individual committing an act like

this has to be taken into account also, I dont see what the publics objection

to nudity, has to do with this, unless the jerk was also naked whilst indulging

in this public dump.

Well, in most cases, such acts involve exposure to some extent or another. The act itself is also lewd, but it's really a moot point, because it's a well-adapted aversion to an act which exposes others to unsanitary conditions. Nudity is a separate issue, and an even farther departure from the topic at hand. Since this all has very little to do with that topic, I think it best this tangent end about now.

blah blah blah, get to page 100 already.

look man. If you have a problem with the fact that not the rest of the world supports your nazi-like views, piss off! are you saying that we should first teach kids to hate 10 % of the global population and THEN outlaw the happiness of these people? ten percent man. Lemme put this in a way you could understand: ten percent of all people in the world is about 600000000 people! that is absolutely undoable. Take your hate and bigotry back to the 1800s and leave us alone for god sake!

You don't force your beliefs on other people?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You don't force your beliefs on other people but YOU WON'T LET GAYS GET MARRIED?!?
Term, you aren't just a bigot and twit. You are the dumbest fuck on the face of the earth.


whatever`lol

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

Sociologists have studied the effects of having two gay "parents" raising a child versus two straight parents. They have discovered one thing that applies more to the child raised by homosexuals.

It's not the the child is more likely to be gay. It also doesn't make a difference on the child's grades either. So what is it? Does anyone have any ideas?

A child that is raised by homosexuals is more likely to accept diversity (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). Is it any wonder why Republicans and the "Religious Right" are so against the "negative" effects of homosexuals? This is clearly against the Christian American way of life of being a bigot!

Every Christian knows that "the Golden Rule" doesn't apply to people we don't want it to, right?

I find it highly amusing the number of people that claim to be a certain religion when they don't even bother following the basic tenets. What makes it even better is when those posers threaten others with eternal damnation of some sort. I'm not surprised they don't realize the hypocrisy considering that those with religious beliefs are statistically less intelligent than those with secular beliefs.

look man. If you have a problem with the fact that not the rest of the world supports your nazi-like views, piss off! are you saying that we should first teach kids to hate 10 % of the global population and THEN outlaw the happiness of these people? ten percent man. Lemme put this in a way you could understand: ten percent of all people in the world is about 600000000 people! that is absolutely undoable. Take your hate and bigotry back to the 1800s and leave us alone for god sake!

Nazi views lol, have a good look at your own PC ones, how Nazi are they?

Its just a hatefilled mantra, that supports character assassinations of anyone

who wont toe the PC line.

Its not hate, as you put it, its just not accepting homosexuality as a normal

behaviour.

As for ten percent of the world being gay, and only gay, well thats just

pure and utter rubbish.

whatever`lol

Ahhhh, I love the smell of a non-response in the evening.

Nazi views lol, have a good look at your own PC ones, how Nazi are they? Its just a hatefilled mantra, that supports character assassinations of anyone who wont toe the PC line.


Term, again I reiterate to you that those of us in favor of gay marriage and equality aren't doing it just because some secret society that exists only in your mind has declared that its PC. And we don't automatically assasinate the characters of thsoe who oppose us--we just go after those of you who can't think or present a logical arguement, but instead repeat the same tired old non-arguement over and over. Sound familiar?


Its not hate, as you put it, its just not accepting homosexuality as a normal
behaviour.

Define what makes something normal. Provide sources.


As for ten percent of the world being gay, and only gay, well thats just
pure and utter rubbish.

Prove that. Find me a source that says its less than ten percent. I guarantee I can find you a valid, unbiased source that says its at least ten and perhaps more.

Prove that. Find me a source that says its less than ten percent. I guarantee I can find you a valid, unbiased source that says its at least ten and perhaps more.

Maybe it's just anecdotal... maybe it doesn't count, because I might be a special case...

But I have met thousands of people... and I would guess about 25% were gay... and at least half of the rest were either bi or bi-curious.

In fact, many of the oh-so-straight people I have met... end up being in the 25% gay grouping at some later date..

Ya no, this thread shoulda been moved like 200 posts ago . . .

...
Prove that. Find me a source that says its less than ten percent. I guarantee I can find you a valid, unbiased source that says its at least ten and perhaps more.

give me a link for stats.

Um no, I dont force my beliefs on to other people, if they want to talk about

the good lord, Im happy to oblige of course.
Well, you do seem to be forcing your beliefs on homosexuals...

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

this is, in fact, circular reasoning. You say it is a bad influence because it is a bad influence, to boil it down. But is it a bad infuluence?

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!Hey! I want some more oppression over here! There's a shortage!

My boyfriend remembers when little boys were saying "daddy why did that black man just kiss that nice lady?" History is repeating itself again! Gah, whoever woulda thunk?

Hey! I want some more oppression over here! There's a shortage!

My boyfriend remembers when little boys were saying "daddy why did that black man just kiss that nice lady?" History is repeating itself again! Gah, whoever woulda thunk?
ignorant people need somebody to put down, to divert attention from their own shortcomings; they have to take away gay people's rights, and fast, because if they stop raising a stick about the queers then everybody else will notice that the ignorant twats are actually ignorant twats.

Can we please let this bigoted, ignorant thread die?

First, i want to apologize for not reading all 100 pages of this thread, i won't be on my computer for much longer tonight, but i wanted to respond before i leave.

I don't think any couple, gay or straight, should be participating in heavy petting or fucking in public, at least not where lots of people will see them, i believe in having some sense of decorum, but i have no problem with kissing, holding hands, or other PDA's of that sort. Explaining things like that to your kids is only hard if you make it hard. My mom discussed sex with me when i was ten, it was a very open and honest conversation, and my mom grew up in a strict Catholic household. You don't have to go into graphic detail, just simply tell them those two men are in love, and sometimes people in love do that. My dad is gay, my brother and i grew up with him and neither one of us is gay or bisexual, we are as straight as they come. People who argue against homosexuality say it goes against family values, but as far as i'm concerned, teaching intolerance also goes against family values. If you are simply against homosexual unions, i can respect that, but hatred and bigotry i can't. You may say that makes me just as bigotted, so be it.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

Explain what?

You feeling sorry? Or lovers kissing each other?


Go to Iran, the Ayatollahs will love you.

give me a link for stats.

Will provide it as soon as my anthropologist friend manages to get it for me. . .she's so much better at doing these searches than me.

Can we please let this bigoted, ignorant thread die?

Look, if you do not want to be part of the discussion, don't read the thread.

So I'm intolerant. I'm just intolerant of intolerance. Just because I think the author of this thread is an idiot doesn't mean I advocate removing any of his rights. People can be as ignorant and bigoted as they want. They just shouldn't be able to enshrine it in law.

Will provide it as soon as my anthropologist friend manages to get it for me. . .she's so much better at doing these searches than me.
I'll wait for them, its more of a curiousity point then anything else. I'm always on a search for more knowledge, this concept seems to be hitting a lot of places, even movies now, so I thought I would find more.

Oh, and homosexuality is only "wrong" in that it doesn't continue the research of Dr. Noah. With his dna manipulation and such its a shame not to continue in his foot steps.


I follow the teachings of enlightenment that has been revealed to me by Dr. Noah. He is our true father here, the genetic scientist that, with his great knowledge and powers, saved our race from destruction long ago. He build a starship and saved our dna and brought us here, and restored us. He modified dna so that it would work on this new enviroment, creating the diversity that we see even to this day.

Look, if you do not want to be part of the discussion, don't read the thread.


you must admit, 101 pages goes way past discussion and into a major clusterfuck. put it out of its misery already.

fist fights arent common enough any more. If it were acceptable for 2 guys to go at it with their fists, fewer would go at it with guns.

You know ... Just once ... I really really wish that people would realize that free speach meant dialogue. All you fools telling this ass to go to Iran ... you're just as bad as he is.

The fact of the matter is, just as people are perfectly free to be homosexual, he's perfectly free to express his views about it.

Still, to have contributed something to this psychotic clusterfuck you call a dialogue, why not just take the opposite route? And abolish all state-sanctioned marriage? Make it a specifically church-based issue (If you're going for marriage). If not, make due with a warm-fuzzy, liberal thought-police friendly civil union.

ya know, that angry fruit salad person reminded me of a joke I once told.

Why are gays so upset these days?

Cause fruits cantaloupe. (can't elope)

You know ... Just once ... I really really wish that people would realize that free speach meant dialogue. All you fools telling this ass to go to Iran ... you're just as bad as he is.

The fact of the matter is, just as people are perfectly free to be homosexual, he's perfectly free to express his views about it.

Still, to have contributed something to this psychotic clusterfuck you call a dialogue, why not just take the opposite route? And abolish all state-sanctioned marriage? Make it a specifically church-based issue (If you're going for marriage). If not, make due with a warm-fuzzy, liberal thought-police friendly civil union.

There was an idea I had. Make weddings up to the churches and have the state do civil unions. Make it so a wedding can be constitued as a civil union so that they can still be legally together and such, but just skip the whole marriage is holy no its a state thing bs.

Its an idea a lot of people have. Frankly, I don't think its a bad one.

fist fights arent common enough any more. If it were acceptable for 2 guys to go at it with their fists, fewer would go at it with guns.


Oh, there was a different research done in the States - if it were allowed in the US to show affection to each other, fewer people would become violent.

As it is now, people are afraid of seeing some skin, but not of seeing lots of blood.

Oh, there was a different research done in the States - if it were allowed in the US to show affection to each other, fewer people would become violent.

As it is now, people are afraid of seeing some skin, but not of seeing lots of blood.

Its because people are insecure about themselves, if they see something they are afraid it will turn out they are that way too, so they would rather not see it then to understand or to gain knowledge from it.

I think it comes from the catholics of old. they drilled it in that different is bad. thats why they destroyed the druid run churchs and such, cause after all, they were different, so they had to be the devil's way.

that mentality is still there, well I ain't that way, so it must be wrong... hey pass the beer.

There was an idea I had. Make weddings up to the churches and have the state do civil unions. Make it so a wedding can be constitued as a civil union so that they can still be legally together and such, but just skip the whole marriage is holy no its a state thing bs.Heck, I say just leave marriage as a private affair. If you want to go around saying you're married to someone, go for it. Civil unions should come in a few different packages. One would be intended for people who intend to procreate, another could be intended to simplify things for people who simply live together (whether married couples who don't want kids or long-term room-mates, &c.), &c. Use your imagination because mine isn't turned on right now. The one for people who intend to have kids would be able to get vouchers and suchlike on things needed to for pregnancy and raising a kid and priority at women's health clinics and so on, and the one for people who are just living together would get an entirely different set of benefits and could include several people. The latter would be good because it would encourage people to share living space, thus causing our expanding population to consume less valuable space. I think it's just crazy enough to work.

Heck, I say just leave marriage as a private affair. If you want to go around saying you're married to someone, go for it. Civil unions should come in a few different packages. One would be intended for people who intend to procreate, another could be intended to simplify things for people who simply live together (whether married couples who don't want kids or long-term room-mates, &c.), &c. Use your imagination because mine isn't turned on right now. The one for people who intend to have kids would be able to get vouchers and suchlike on things needed to for pregnancy and raising a kid and priority at women's health clinics and so on, and the one for people who are just living together would get an entirely different set of benefits and could include several people. The latter would be good because it would encourage people to share living space, thus causing our expanding population to consume less valuable space. I think it's just crazy enough to work.

sounds good to me. I've always felt that the rights granted under marriage wouldn't be as fitting to people that aren't intending to procreate and such. Making it so that each subcatagory would better fit the "couple" or individual would make more sence.

I think it comes from the catholics of old. they drilled it in that different is bad. thats why they destroyed the druid run churchs and such, cause after all, they were different, so they had to be the devil's way.

Wait ... Druid run churches?

Wait ... Druid run churches?


yes, the first christian churchs in europe were done by the druids, its one of the reasons that every old church the catholics have in europe is built over a druid grove.

the biggest arguement was, the druids worshiped in nature, and catholics followed the roman way of building with stone.

druids felt, church that G-d built
catholics felt, church that we built to honor G-d.

the druids have always had simalar beliefs to Jesus. They worshiped G-d the Father even, and they saw it as Mother Earth, as did Jesus. After all, Jesus is to be be wed to his wife, The Earth. Most people that say they are druids now, aren't. They claim to follow the old written texts of the druids, even though the druids didn't have a written language, they felt that if you wrote it, you would forget it. Most have changed it over to Goddess and such, like the Wiccans, though there is nothing really old about the new pagans.

you must admit, 101 pages goes way past discussion and into a major clusterfuck. put it out of its misery already.

Again, if you have a problem with it still going, don't continue to read or take part in it.

You know ... Just once ... I really really wish that people would realize that free speach meant dialogue. All you fools telling this ass to go to Iran ... you're just as bad as he is.

The fact of the matter is, just as people are perfectly free to be homosexual, he's perfectly free to express his views about it.

Still, to have contributed something to this psychotic clusterfuck you call a dialogue, why not just take the opposite route? And abolish all state-sanctioned marriage? Make it a specifically church-based issue (If you're going for marriage). If not, make due with a warm-fuzzy, liberal thought-police friendly civil union.

Not all of us have told him where to go. I will admit I've let a few malicious thoughts fly on here--but they are directed at people who cannot make an arguement but think they can. Of course, I should point out that your complaining that people express their views about someone else's views is as bad as they are.

And we've discussed the possibility of no more state sanctioned marriage here. Its' just an opinion, but I think that's crap. Marriage is no just religious, despite what people think. And while I have no problem with everyone having civil unions, they have to be made equal to the institution that is currently called marriage to be all warm and fuzzy. Other wise they just continue to be disciminatory.

sounds good to me. I've always felt that the rights granted under marriage wouldn't be as fitting to people that aren't intending to procreate and such. Making it so that each subcatagory would better fit the "couple" or individual would make more sence.

You don't seem to know about the rights granted to married couples. The GAO identified ove 1100 rights associated with marriag. . . . most not dealing with kids. And just so you know, gays often have their own or adopt children too. We are hardly barren.

I dont mind gays at all. But I couldnt eat a whole one!

You don't seem to know about the rights granted to married couples. The GAO identified ove 1100 rights associated with marriag. . . . most not dealing with kids. And just so you know, gays often have their own or adopt children too. We are hardly barren.

ok, list some rights that don't involve children, I'm curious. Too many times I hear, oh you're wrong, such and such says so, but I'm not going to list them, just say they are there with no backing at all.

As for the adoption part and the having their own children I'd like to point out that adoption laws are completely different. People do not need to be married to adopt a child. And a step-parent has no real rights to a step-child until after they adopt them, being married doesn't grant them any extra rights to the child, believe me, I have a step daughter that I've raised since she was born, but because I don't have the $1000 needed to adopt her, I can't take her to the doctor without getting a note from her mother first. The same is true with my son who cannot be taken to the doctor by my wife, his step mother, without me giving her a note first.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

Let's see. Gay marriage IS banned in the states, and yet this event occured anyway. So clearly the one does not affect the other. Now, if you are suggesting that schools having to explain homosexuality to children is bad - as opposed to letting them just pick up as much false information as they can from other children, then you do them a disservice. Hiding something doesn't make it go away.

Also, kids - if brought up to be affectionate - don't understand sexual identity and will hug and kiss pretty much anyone regardless of gender. Most parents already have to go through a period where they explain what they feel is appropriate public behaviour.

In other words, you probably kissed people of the same sex as a child. It did not, I assume, impact your sexual orientation when you hit puberty. So this supposed "problem" is also irrelevant.

And finally - what does Santa have to do with anything, i.e. why did you feel the need to put that in caps? I mean, how is Sanata relevant besides being one of the big whoppers parents already teach their kids. You seem to be complaining that kids had to witness reality while immersed in one of the biggest cultural lies of the Christian society.

Frankly, I think the truth serves children better....

Let's see. Gay marriage IS banned in the states, and yet this event occured anyway. So clearly the one does not affect the other. Now, if you are suggesting that schools having to explain homosexuality to children is bad - as opposed to letting them just pick up as much false information as they can from other children, then you do them a disservice. Hiding something doesn't make it go away.

Also, kids - if brought up to be affectionate - don't understand sexual identity and will hug and kiss pretty much anyone regardless of gender. Most parents already have to go through a period where they explain what they feel is appropriate public behaviour.

In other words, you probably kissed people of the same sex as a child. It did not, I assume, impact your sexual orientation when you hit puberty. So this supposed "problem" is also irrelevant.

And finally - what does Santa have to do with anything, i.e. why did you feel the need to put that in caps? I mean, how is Sanata relevant besides being one of the big whoppers parents already teach their kids. You seem to be complaining that kids had to witness reality while immersed in one of the biggest cultural lies of the Christian society.

Frankly, I think the truth serves children better....


I think he made the point based around Santa just to try and show how innocent these children were/are. Though it also shows that pretty much anything taught to children at that age is believed, and as we grow older we make up our own minds.

Though I think he just wanted to make a rant and didn't really care beyond that point, after all, how dare he risk getting turned on, er I mean, have to see that.

Holy crap. This thread is long. Anyway, it looks like it's time to clear something up. People who post anything like this (such as why blacks are bad influences with their rap and their drugs and their whores, or why Americans are stupid with their fried lard and Nascar and Garth Brooks, or why French people all smell like urine, sneer at all non-French folk and have a disgusting air of superiority despite their artsy-fartsy prissy coffee-drinking ways) should not get angry when everyone else in the world starts throwing rocks at them for being an "oppressor." I believe that homosexual marriage should be allowed, and I realize that being gay is not easy. I still have a right to be disgusted by gays who kiss in public. When you became gay, you accepted that you were different from the rest of the world. Just as you can't help being a homosexual, I can't help being a little repulsed when I see two men making out in a food court. Freedom is a two-way street, and you shouldn't call us intolerant oppressing bigots no more than we should call you dirty, sicko perverted fags. I know some gay people. They are good people. You don't have to be devoted to one side or another. We're all human here, folks, so let's just respect each other's opinion. Gays have no more control over their sexual orientation than they do the color of their eyes. It can't be easy when they realize it. Their brains are just wired that way- they can't help it. As for us who are a little offended when we see two gay men kissing at the mall, it's years of evolution telling us to be disgusted. Gays are not productive to the species. That raises a red flag in our brains. So stay away from me, both y'all. People that insult others for being heartless bigots obviously don't practice what they preach. People have to be tolerant of who you are. But they don't have to like you. Freedom goes both ways (no pun intended).

In the name of all that is holy...let this thread diiiiiieeeeeee.