Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Defense of Clothing Act

lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 9:27:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As many know, conservatives and even some moderates have been trying to pass this thing, its called "Defense of Marriage Act", now I thought it was hateful and bigoted, but then they showed me how its backed up by bible scripture and this country needs to be more run on faith, cause that's what the founding fathers wanted.
Rather than debate the last part with them, I realized, they were right, we need more bible running our lives. Which is why, if you support the Defense of Marriage Act (And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination levitucus 20:13)
You should sign a petition to pass the Defense of Clothing Act.
(Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. levitucus 19:19)

The biggest reasons I hear of why the Defense of Marriage Act is the right way to go is

1) The bible says homosexuality is evil so we shouldn't let them get married.
2) We don't want our children thinking its okay to be gay (my dad's fave)
3) If we let them marry they will corrupt our youth.
4) We shouldn't let gays be open about being gay, in the military, as a teacher, or in public settings like a park, or at the movies, they tend to be semi-okay as long as no one knows their gay.
So I have come up with 4 main reasons to pass the Defense of Clothing Act, so that these supporters will not be hypocritical (That's reason 1, but there are four others)

1) The bible says mixed clothing is evil, so we shouldn't let it be sold.
2) we don't want out children thinking its okay to wear different types of clothing together.
3) If we allow it to be sold, it will destroy the morality in our youth.
4) We shouldn't let it be sold in stores, worn in public, discussed in public, etc, because that would make it seem acceptable. Maybe you can make it yourself and wear it in your house, but not if you have kids. In fact people with this sick and unholy desire shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 9:28:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Brilliant!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 11:32:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 9:57:12 AM, Volkov wrote:
To point out, DOMA is already law, and has been for several years now.

Soon they'll be trying to "pass it" past the courts though. And they'll need some legal trick to get standing since the current administration says they'll "enforce it" but refuses to defend it in court.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 11:56:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 11:32:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Soon they'll be trying to "pass it" past the courts though. And they'll need some legal trick to get standing since the current administration says they'll "enforce it" but refuses to defend it in court.

Ah, fair enough point. It's funny how they've finally given up on their original supporting argument for DOMA in the court system - the whole "refusing to enforce" thing. They suffered enough blowback that they can't even rely on their constitutional lawyers to give them a sound argument anymore.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:02:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 11:56:20 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/2/2011 11:32:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Soon they'll be trying to "pass it" past the courts though. And they'll need some legal trick to get standing since the current administration says they'll "enforce it" but refuses to defend it in court.

Ah, fair enough point. It's funny how they've finally given up on their original supporting argument for DOMA in the court system - the whole "refusing to enforce" thing. They suffered enough blowback that they can't even rely on their constitutional lawyers to give them a sound argument anymore.

It's the Obama administration, I didn't know they were supposed to be all gung ho about it. If Clinton who signed it or Bush were to refuse to defend it there would be a little more "funniness". Though at Volokh there was quite a kerfluffle about whether there was any integrity in still enforcing it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:15:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Fair enough criticisms, about the wording, but I'm sure you've all run across people that say things like that.
I came up with this more original argument when reading people circle jerk about gay marriage on Mike Huckabe's fb status.
So more against the rednecks that think we should pass laws based on the bible, but not everything in the bible, only the parts that fit the agenda, than the actual laws.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:40:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually, the bible doesn't say that wearing two types of clothes are evil, it just says "don't do it."

It also says, "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life." and "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."

Which I personally think hold a little more water.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:43:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's definitely one of your best posts yet lovelife, I like it!

Btw, I just shake my head in disbelief when I hear about things like the "Defense of Marriage Act" - at least they could be honest and call it the "Homosexual Persecution Act" or even the "Let's go Gay-Bashing in the Name of God Act"!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:43:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 12:40:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, the bible doesn't say that wearing two types of clothes are evil, it just says "don't do it."

Its a command from god, which means going against it is a sin, and sins are evil ;)

It also says, "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life." and "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."

Which I personally think hold a little more water.

Yes that is true, but I find it humorous that even the most homophobic bible thumper cannot seem to defend from this. Yet I have never heard one advocate for this movement?
Makes me kinda sad.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:54:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 12:43:56 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:40:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, the bible doesn't say that wearing two types of clothes are evil, it just says "don't do it."

Its a command from god, which means going against it is a sin, and sins are evil ;)

Technically, it was a command from Moses, who said it came to him from God. But even then, the laws of the OT were replaced with the new covenent of the NT. Thus why sacrifices were no longer required.


It also says, "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life." and "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."

Which I personally think hold a little more water.

Yes that is true, but I find it humorous that even the most homophobic bible thumper cannot seem to defend from this. Yet I have never heard one advocate for this movement?
Makes me kinda sad.

technically, you can sin then ask for forgiveness. Since the bible (and God) does not expect anyone to "not sin."

"for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (can't remember the verse number, I think it was in Romans)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 1:15:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 12:54:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:43:56 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:40:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, the bible doesn't say that wearing two types of clothes are evil, it just says "don't do it."

Its a command from god, which means going against it is a sin, and sins are evil ;)

Technically, it was a command from Moses, who said it came to him from God. But even then, the laws of the OT were replaced with the new covenent of the NT. Thus why sacrifices were no longer required.

Why do people defend one thing, but say the other is outdated, when their practically right next to each other?
Its not like its genesis vs leviticus.
That's my point. To say one is outdated and no longer required, but defend the other is pure hypocrisy, BS, and excuses.
If you defend one but not the other, then how are you living up to it?


It also says, "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life." and "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."

Which I personally think hold a little more water.

Yes that is true, but I find it humorous that even the most homophobic bible thumper cannot seem to defend from this. Yet I have never heard one advocate for this movement?
Makes me kinda sad.

technically, you can sin then ask for forgiveness. Since the bible (and God) does not expect anyone to "not sin."

"for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (can't remember the verse number, I think it was in Romans)

So why is gay marriage an issue then?
Its a state thing, private groups such as churches don't have to endorse or perform it, yet people use bible scripture to back up their homophobic wishes, but refuse to when the clothing might be inconvenient.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 3:11:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 9:27:10 AM, lovelife wrote:
As many know, conservatives and even some moderates have been trying to pass this thing, its called "Defense of Marriage Act", now I thought it was hateful and bigoted, but then they showed me how its backed up by bible scripture and this country needs to be more run on faith, cause that's what the founding fathers wanted.
Rather than debate the last part with them, I realized, they were right, we need more bible running our lives. Which is why, if you support the Defense of Marriage Act (And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination levitucus 20:13)
You should sign a petition to pass the Defense of Clothing Act.
(Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. levitucus 19:19)

The biggest reasons I hear of why the Defense of Marriage Act is the right way to go is

1) The bible says homosexuality is evil so we shouldn't let them get married.
2) We don't want our children thinking its okay to be gay (my dad's fave)
3) If we let them marry they will corrupt our youth.
4) We shouldn't let gays be open about being gay, in the military, as a teacher, or in public settings like a park, or at the movies, they tend to be semi-okay as long as no one knows their gay.
So I have come up with 4 main reasons to pass the Defense of Clothing Act, so that these supporters will not be hypocritical (That's reason 1, but there are four others)

1) The bible says mixed clothing is evil, so we shouldn't let it be sold.
2) we don't want out children thinking its okay to wear different types of clothing together.
3) If we allow it to be sold, it will destroy the morality in our youth.
4) We shouldn't let it be sold in stores, worn in public, discussed in public, etc, because that would make it seem acceptable. Maybe you can make it yourself and wear it in your house, but not if you have kids. In fact people with this sick and unholy desire shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

Nothing that threatens the established way of live will ever be disputed on. Conversely ANYthing that even remotely appears to do so, will be fiercely attacked.

What you are doing, is arguing for people to behave rationally "in their irrationalities" too! Don't you think your anger would be of much better use elsewhere? :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 3:15:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 3:11:24 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/2/2011 9:27:10 AM, lovelife wrote:
As many know, conservatives and even some moderates have been trying to pass this thing, its called "Defense of Marriage Act", now I thought it was hateful and bigoted, but then they showed me how its backed up by bible scripture and this country needs to be more run on faith, cause that's what the founding fathers wanted.
Rather than debate the last part with them, I realized, they were right, we need more bible running our lives. Which is why, if you support the Defense of Marriage Act (And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination levitucus 20:13)
You should sign a petition to pass the Defense of Clothing Act.
(Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. levitucus 19:19)

The biggest reasons I hear of why the Defense of Marriage Act is the right way to go is

1) The bible says homosexuality is evil so we shouldn't let them get married.
2) We don't want our children thinking its okay to be gay (my dad's fave)
3) If we let them marry they will corrupt our youth.
4) We shouldn't let gays be open about being gay, in the military, as a teacher, or in public settings like a park, or at the movies, they tend to be semi-okay as long as no one knows their gay.
So I have come up with 4 main reasons to pass the Defense of Clothing Act, so that these supporters will not be hypocritical (That's reason 1, but there are four others)

1) The bible says mixed clothing is evil, so we shouldn't let it be sold.
2) we don't want out children thinking its okay to wear different types of clothing together.
3) If we allow it to be sold, it will destroy the morality in our youth.
4) We shouldn't let it be sold in stores, worn in public, discussed in public, etc, because that would make it seem acceptable. Maybe you can make it yourself and wear it in your house, but not if you have kids. In fact people with this sick and unholy desire shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

Nothing that threatens the established way of life will ever be disputed on. Conversely ANYthing that even remotely appears to do so, will be fiercely attacked.

What you are doing, is arguing for people to behave rationally "in their irrationalities" too! Don't you think your anger would be of much better use elsewhere? :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 3:22:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 1:15:24 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:54:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:43:56 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:40:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, the bible doesn't say that wearing two types of clothes are evil, it just says "don't do it."

Its a command from god, which means going against it is a sin, and sins are evil ;)

Technically, it was a command from Moses, who said it came to him from God. But even then, the laws of the OT were replaced with the new covenent of the NT. Thus why sacrifices were no longer required.

Why do people defend one thing, but say the other is outdated, when their practically right next to each other?

The OT to the NT?

All I pointed out were some good morals for Leviticus.

You can think of more like a religious history book. Sure, in the OT, it said do this, but that no longer applies. Just like in the 1850's slavery was perfectly fine, but now it is not. Times change, and the change is documented in the bible itself.

Its not like its genesis vs leviticus.
That's my point. To say one is outdated and no longer required, but defend the other is pure hypocrisy, BS, and excuses.
If you defend one but not the other, then how are you living up to it?

Because the covenent was changed by Jesus fricken Christ.



It also says, "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life." and "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."

Which I personally think hold a little more water.

Yes that is true, but I find it humorous that even the most homophobic bible thumper cannot seem to defend from this. Yet I have never heard one advocate for this movement?
Makes me kinda sad.

technically, you can sin then ask for forgiveness. Since the bible (and God) does not expect anyone to "not sin."

"for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (can't remember the verse number, I think it was in Romans)

So why is gay marriage an issue then?
Its a state thing, private groups such as churches don't have to endorse or perform it, yet people use bible scripture to back up their homophobic wishes, but refuse to when the clothing might be inconvenient.

Why is marriage a state thing? Why not make the benefits of it a state thing, and allow the ceremony to be a religious thing? I don't go around complainning that I didn't get to have a Bar Mitzvah.

Take the legal stuff out of it all together and make those into an entirely seperate entity. Civil unions. If a religious straight couple wants to get married under a church and not a civil union, fine, they don't get the benefits, just the party. If a church wants to marry homosexuals (as many do), fine. Let each individual church decide.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 4:21:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 3:22:58 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 1:15:24 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:54:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:43:56 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:40:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, the bible doesn't say that wearing two types of clothes are evil, it just says "don't do it."

Its a command from god, which means going against it is a sin, and sins are evil ;)

Technically, it was a command from Moses, who said it came to him from God. But even then, the laws of the OT were replaced with the new covenent of the NT. Thus why sacrifices were no longer required.

Why do people defend one thing, but say the other is outdated, when their practically right next to each other?

The OT to the NT?

All I pointed out were some good morals for Leviticus.

You can think of more like a religious history book. Sure, in the OT, it said do this, but that no longer applies. Just like in the 1850's slavery was perfectly fine, but now it is not. Times change, and the change is documented in the bible itself.

They are right next to each other. If times have changed they have changed for both.
You can't say that murder is fine now but stealing isn't cause times have changed.

Its not like its genesis vs leviticus.
That's my point. To say one is outdated and no longer required, but defend the other is pure hypocrisy, BS, and excuses.
If you defend one but not the other, then how are you living up to it?

Because the covenent was changed by Jesus fricken Christ.

Then he changed it all.



It also says, "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life." and "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."

Which I personally think hold a little more water.

Yes that is true, but I find it humorous that even the most homophobic bible thumper cannot seem to defend from this. Yet I have never heard one advocate for this movement?
Makes me kinda sad.

technically, you can sin then ask for forgiveness. Since the bible (and God) does not expect anyone to "not sin."

"for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (can't remember the verse number, I think it was in Romans)

So why is gay marriage an issue then?
Its a state thing, private groups such as churches don't have to endorse or perform it, yet people use bible scripture to back up their homophobic wishes, but refuse to when the clothing might be inconvenient.

Why is marriage a state thing?

Because its secular. Its not a religious power. My mom and stepdad for example were married in a courthouse.

Why not make the benefits of it a state thing, and allow the ceremony to be a religious thing? I don't go around complainning that I didn't get to have a Bar Mitzvah.

Well duh the cermony is a church, beach, forest, house, etc thing.
The benefits DUH are from the state.
You don't need a ceremony to be married, and you sure as hell don't need a church, so why the hell do religions even GET a say.

(cough cough, the bible is also against inter-racial marriage, and btw atheists and such get married too)

Take the legal stuff out of it all together and make those into an entirely seperate entity.

We aren't talking going back to cavemen times (well 100 years ago I guess) where you HAD to go through the church TIMES HAVE F-CKING CHANGED the church can decide if they want to perform a ceremony, but guess what?! THE BENEFITS AND RECOGNITION SHOULD STILL BE GIVEN TO THOSE THAT MARRY THE SAME GENDER!!!

Civil unions. If a religious straight couple wants to get married under a church and not a civil union, fine, they don't get the benefits, just the party.

Wow, I'm talking about keeping the system but giving an equal opportunity. Stop trying to go backwards and rewrite sh!t.

If a church wants to marry homosexuals (as many do), fine. Let each individual church decide.

THAT I can agree with. AND IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE AS JUST AS MUCH A MARRIAGE AS THEIR STRAIGHT COUNTER PARTS!
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 4:44:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 4:21:45 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 3/2/2011 3:22:58 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 1:15:24 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:54:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:43:56 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:40:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, the bible doesn't say that wearing two types of clothes are evil, it just says "don't do it."

Its a command from god, which means going against it is a sin, and sins are evil ;)

Technically, it was a command from Moses, who said it came to him from God. But even then, the laws of the OT were replaced with the new covenent of the NT. Thus why sacrifices were no longer required.

Why do people defend one thing, but say the other is outdated, when their practically right next to each other?

The OT to the NT?

All I pointed out were some good morals for Leviticus.

You can think of more like a religious history book. Sure, in the OT, it said do this, but that no longer applies. Just like in the 1850's slavery was perfectly fine, but now it is not. Times change, and the change is documented in the bible itself.

They are right next to each other. If times have changed they have changed for both.

The OT and the NT are different times of themselves, lol, they are not the same time.

You can't say that murder is fine now but stealing isn't cause times have changed.

Its not like its genesis vs leviticus.
That's my point. To say one is outdated and no longer required, but defend the other is pure hypocrisy, BS, and excuses.
If you defend one but not the other, then how are you living up to it?

Because the covenent was changed by Jesus fricken Christ.

Then he changed it all.

No he didn't. Just like someone can say "we now have laws, A, B, C, and D" then later he can say "nevermind, we're getting rid of laws C and D and keeping A and B." That is perfectly fine to do. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.




It also says, "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life." and "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."

Which I personally think hold a little more water.

Yes that is true, but I find it humorous that even the most homophobic bible thumper cannot seem to defend from this. Yet I have never heard one advocate for this movement?
Makes me kinda sad.

technically, you can sin then ask for forgiveness. Since the bible (and God) does not expect anyone to "not sin."

"for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (can't remember the verse number, I think it was in Romans)

So why is gay marriage an issue then?
Its a state thing, private groups such as churches don't have to endorse or perform it, yet people use bible scripture to back up their homophobic wishes, but refuse to when the clothing might be inconvenient.

Why is marriage a state thing?

Because its secular. Its not a religious power. My mom and stepdad for example were married in a courthouse.

Yeah, so? That should be changed.


Why not make the benefits of it a state thing, and allow the ceremony to be a religious thing? I don't go around complainning that I didn't get to have a Bar Mitzvah.

Well duh the cermony is a church, beach, forest, house, etc thing.
The benefits DUH are from the state.
You don't need a ceremony to be married, and you sure as hell don't need a church, so why the hell do religions even GET a say.

Because to unioning of two people was taken from the church and incorporated into the state. The seperation of church and state should re-seperate the two.


(cough cough, the bible is also against inter-racial marriage, and btw atheists and such get married too)

Take the legal stuff out of it all together and make those into an entirely seperate entity.

We aren't talking going back to cavemen times (well 100 years ago I guess) where you HAD to go through the church TIMES HAVE F-CKING CHANGED the church can decide if they want to perform a ceremony, but guess what?! THE BENEFITS AND RECOGNITION SHOULD STILL BE GIVEN TO THOSE THAT MARRY THE SAME GENDER!!!

And give them a different name, problem solved.


Civil unions. If a religious straight couple wants to get married under a church and not a civil union, fine, they don't get the benefits, just the party.

Wow, I'm talking about keeping the system but giving an equal opportunity. Stop trying to go backwards and rewrite sh!t.

I'm not rewriting anything. I'm talking about a system where both heterosexual and homosexual people are treated exactly the same by the government, ergo, completely equally opportunity for all under the government.

If a church wants to marry homosexuals (as many do), fine. Let each individual church decide.

THAT I can agree with. AND IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE AS JUST AS MUCH A MARRIAGE AS THEIR STRAIGHT COUNTER PARTS!

Which should be not at all unless they also preform a civil union via paper for the government.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 4:56:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What I love is, practically on the same page as the destruction of Sodom, two women get their father drunk and seduce him and God has nothing bad to say about that. Incest FTW!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:02:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 4:56:37 PM, nonentity wrote:
What I love is, practically on the same page as the destruction of Sodom, two women get their father drunk and seduce him and God has nothing bad to say about that. Incest FTW!

Cause they were hot, and their daddy had a ruff day at work. And technically, they were step daughters, which is cool.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:07:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If homosexuals can't get married straight marriage should be outlawed too. I'm sure if that were to happen even homophobes would be up in arms about allowing homosexuals to marry so they can marry.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:08:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Omg my patience is getting lower than L's when she's playing mafia or talking to goose (geese? I forget)

At 3/2/2011 4:44:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 4:21:45 PM, lovelife wrote:

They are right next to each other. If times have changed they have changed for both.

The OT and the NT are different times of themselves, lol, they are not the same time.

LEVITICUS! Its the SAME book. ITS NOT DIFFERENT TESTAMENTS!

You can't say that murder is fine now but stealing isn't cause times have changed.

Then he changed it all.

No he didn't. Just like someone can say "we now have laws, A, B, C, and D" then later he can say "nevermind, we're getting rid of laws C and D and keeping A and B." That is perfectly fine to do. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

He never said you could wear clothes of separate material, now did he?

Because its secular. Its not a religious power. My mom and stepdad for example were married in a courthouse.

Yeah, so? That should be changed.

No it shouldn't. We shouldn't BACKTRACK progress.

Well duh the cermony is a church, beach, forest, house, etc thing.
The benefits DUH are from the state.
You don't need a ceremony to be married, and you sure as hell don't need a church, so why the hell do religions even GET a say.

Because to unioning of two people was taken from the church and incorporated into the state. The seperation of church and state should re-seperate the two.


No, it really wasn't. Pagans and other groups did such things. Native Americans that had never heard of religion had such thing, and they openly embraced the gays, to partake in the same thing.

We aren't talking going back to cavemen times (well 100 years ago I guess) where you HAD to go through the church TIMES HAVE F-CKING CHANGED the church can decide if they want to perform a ceremony, but guess what?! THE BENEFITS AND RECOGNITION SHOULD STILL BE GIVEN TO THOSE THAT MARRY THE SAME GENDER!!!

And give them a different name, problem solved.

No, because that would make it lesser than still. Why not give them the SAME thing? A black guy(or girl) marries a black girl (or guy) their married. Its not called a civil union unless they'd rather get that. They get to be MARRIED tho, even tho the same bible is against inter-racial relationships. Hmmmm.
Its PURE bigotry.

Wow, I'm talking about keeping the system but giving an equal opportunity. Stop trying to go backwards and rewrite sh!t.

I'm not rewriting anything. I'm talking about a system where both heterosexual and homosexual people are treated exactly the same by the government, ergo, completely equally opportunity for all under the government.

Its not being treated the same unless they get the SAME THING. Not "separate but equal" treatment.

THAT I can agree with. AND IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE AS JUST AS MUCH A MARRIAGE AS THEIR STRAIGHT COUNTER PARTS!

Which should be not at all unless they also preform a civil union via paper for the government.

Well duh, but they should have the right to have the EXACT same thing and SAME recognition.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:10:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 5:07:13 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
If homosexuals can't get married straight marriage should be outlawed too. I'm sure if that were to happen even homophobes would be up in arms about allowing homosexuals to marry so they can marry.

I could go for an all or nothing situation.
Just equal rights an recognition for all.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:48:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 5:08:31 PM, lovelife wrote:
Omg my patience is getting lower than L's when she's playing mafia or talking to goose (geese? I forget)


At 3/2/2011 4:44:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 4:21:45 PM, lovelife wrote:

They are right next to each other. If times have changed they have changed for both.

The OT and the NT are different times of themselves, lol, they are not the same time.

LEVITICUS! Its the SAME book. ITS NOT DIFFERENT TESTAMENTS!

You're still talking about that? No wonder you are yelling. In case you are wondering, in the NT, Jesus does not talk about homosexuality, however it is brought up a few times and mentioned as a sin (mostly just combined with other things generally viewed as sins), even though there is some argument if that is just a translation error, oh well.

But since it might be mentioned, it could be argued that the new covenent drops the old rules and establishes new ones, the clothes restriction being dropped, and the homosexual one (could be argued) not being dropped.

However, the main message behind the new covenent is to love your neighbor. Not saying that everything that they do is sin free, as we have all sinned...you know the rest. But that we should accept their sins and leave the sins to the father to deal with.


You can't say that murder is fine now but stealing isn't cause times have changed.

Then he changed it all.

No he didn't. Just like someone can say "we now have laws, A, B, C, and D" then later he can say "nevermind, we're getting rid of laws C and D and keeping A and B." That is perfectly fine to do. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

He never said you could wear clothes of separate material, now did he?

He never said you could do jumping jacks while whistling at old ladies. A list or things you cannot do is shorter, and generally more accepted, than a list of things you can do.



Because its secular. Its not a religious power. My mom and stepdad for example were married in a courthouse.

Yeah, so? That should be changed.

No it shouldn't. We shouldn't BACKTRACK progress.

If progress took you in a wrong direction then you should back out of there. If you drive down a wrong street do you just keep going or do you turn around and get back on track?


Well duh the cermony is a church, beach, forest, house, etc thing.
The benefits DUH are from the state.
You don't need a ceremony to be married, and you sure as hell don't need a church, so why the hell do religions even GET a say.

Because to unioning of two people was taken from the church and incorporated into the state. The seperation of church and state should re-seperate the two.


No, it really wasn't. Pagans and other groups did such things. Native Americans that had never heard of religion had such thing, and they openly embraced the gays, to partake in the same thing.

they had unions of people, yes. They did not have marriages. Although with the expanded definition of the word "marriage" it is easy to see how that mistake can be made.

You have many similar types of unions that are like a marriage.

Marriage - the union of two people, recognized under God (i.e. the church)
Anand Karaj - the union of two "souls" in Sikh
Hindu actually has 8 different types (4 religious, 4 non)
Civil union - the union of people, recognized under the government (the government is, of course allowed to expand or contrast their own definitions).

The problem really arrised because Christianity had spread so thick throughout the middle ages and that the Church and the government became intertwined, that the "marriage" became linked to "civil unions."

Now that we are trying to pull the church out from the government, that wording should be pulled with it.



We aren't talking going back to cavemen times (well 100 years ago I guess) where you HAD to go through the church TIMES HAVE F-CKING CHANGED the church can decide if they want to perform a ceremony, but guess what?! THE BENEFITS AND RECOGNITION SHOULD STILL BE GIVEN TO THOSE THAT MARRY THE SAME GENDER!!!

And give them a different name, problem solved.

No, because that would make it lesser than still. Why not give them the SAME thing? A black guy(or girl) marries a black girl (or guy) their married. Its not called a civil union unless they'd rather get that. They get to be MARRIED tho, even tho the same bible is against inter-racial relationships. Hmmmm.

civil union is not less than a marriage, one is recognized as religious, one is recognized as governmental.

Its PURE bigotry.

Seperation of church and state is bigotry?



Wow, I'm talking about keeping the system but giving an equal opportunity. Stop trying to go backwards and rewrite sh!t.

I'm not rewriting anything. I'm talking about a system where both heterosexual and homosexual people are treated exactly the same by the government, ergo, completely equally opportunity for all under the government.

Its not being treated the same unless they get the SAME THING. Not "separate but equal" treatment.

It's not even equal, since "married" would not get benefits. They would be two different things. Like a working car (the civil union) and a picture of a car (the marriage).



THAT I can agree with. AND IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE AS JUST AS MUCH A MARRIAGE AS THEIR STRAIGHT COUNTER PARTS!

Which should be not at all unless they also preform a civil union via paper for the government.

Well duh, but they should have the right to have the EXACT same thing and SAME recognition.

They do. Both can have the civil union which would be the only thing that actually has anything tied to it, like benefits. The marriage would be nothing but a party at a church.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:53:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 5:48:12 PM, OreEle wrote:

You're still talking about that? No wonder you are yelling. In case you are wondering, in the NT, Jesus does not talk about homosexuality, however it is brought up a few times and mentioned as a sin (mostly just combined with other things generally viewed as sins), even though there is some argument if that is just a translation error, oh well.

But since it might be mentioned, it could be argued that the new covenent drops the old rules and establishes new ones, the clothes restriction being dropped, and the homosexual one (could be argued) not being dropped.

However, the main message behind the new covenent is to love your neighbor. Not saying that everything that they do is sin free, as we have all sinned...you know the rest. But that we should accept their sins and leave the sins to the father to deal with.

I still find it funny that there seems to be less jews protesting against gay rights than christians and it's in the book jews actually follow. There's actually many jews supportive of gay rights, mostly reform, but that's aside from the point.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:56:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 5:53:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/2/2011 5:48:12 PM, OreEle wrote:

You're still talking about that? No wonder you are yelling. In case you are wondering, in the NT, Jesus does not talk about homosexuality, however it is brought up a few times and mentioned as a sin (mostly just combined with other things generally viewed as sins), even though there is some argument if that is just a translation error, oh well.

But since it might be mentioned, it could be argued that the new covenent drops the old rules and establishes new ones, the clothes restriction being dropped, and the homosexual one (could be argued) not being dropped.

However, the main message behind the new covenent is to love your neighbor. Not saying that everything that they do is sin free, as we have all sinned...you know the rest. But that we should accept their sins and leave the sins to the father to deal with.

I still find it funny that there seems to be less jews protesting against gay rights than christians and it's in the book jews actually follow. There's actually many jews supportive of gay rights, mostly reform, but that's aside from the point.

That also depends on where you go in the US. Christians from the south =/= Christians from the northwest. Even though we all know that they get blanketed together.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:58:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 5:53:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/2/2011 5:48:12 PM, OreEle wrote:

You're still talking about that? No wonder you are yelling. In case you are wondering, in the NT, Jesus does not talk about homosexuality, however it is brought up a few times and mentioned as a sin (mostly just combined with other things generally viewed as sins), even though there is some argument if that is just a translation error, oh well.

But since it might be mentioned, it could be argued that the new covenent drops the old rules and establishes new ones, the clothes restriction being dropped, and the homosexual one (could be argued) not being dropped.

However, the main message behind the new covenent is to love your neighbor. Not saying that everything that they do is sin free, as we have all sinned...you know the rest. But that we should accept their sins and leave the sins to the father to deal with.

I still find it funny that there seems to be less jews protesting against gay rights than christians and it's in the book jews actually follow. There's actually many jews supportive of gay rights, mostly reform, but that's aside from the point.

Didn't you say they aren't real Jews?
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 5:58:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 5:56:19 PM, OreEle wrote:

That also depends on where you go in the US. Christians from the south =/= Christians from the northwest. Even though we all know that they get blanketed together.

I don't care where they're from, but there are alot of hypocritical christians out there. You either follow the OT in it's entirely or you don't follow any of it at all. Christians have their new stuff, so stick to that since it was intended for you.
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 6:01:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 5:59:26 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/2/2011 5:58:15 PM, Anarcho wrote:

Didn't you say they aren't real Jews?

No, I never once said that. What are you smoking?

You said it about some Jews.
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 6:03:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 6:01:18 PM, Anarcho wrote:
At 3/2/2011 5:59:26 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/2/2011 5:58:15 PM, Anarcho wrote:

Didn't you say they aren't real Jews?

No, I never once said that. What are you smoking?

You said it about some Jews.

No I didn't. I probably said that the way jews interpret the OT is much different than how christians interpret it, but I never called pro-gay jews fake jews.