http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
Advertisement
by UCUMAY » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:52 am
by Farnhamia » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:52 am
by Samuraikoku » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:55 am
by Samuraikoku » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:58 am
by Daircoill » Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:02 am
by Wikkiwallana » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:29 am
Scientific socks wrote:Ifreann wrote:Because what is or isn't natural is totally relevant to who should legally be allowed to get married.
Yes
I already answered that earlier by mentioning culture, religion and the requirement for reproduction. If there is any respect in you for social norms, religion or even nature you would be try and find a more acceptable approach than altering someone elses religious beliefs.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by The non ignorant » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:17 pm
-St George wrote:The non ignorant wrote:Also, in the bible it says that gays are worthy of death.
No, it doesn't.
In Leviticus it says that Levites/Jewish priestly class members, who engage in homosexual sex, are 'abominations'. 'Abomination' in the Hebrew has a number of meanings which we don't attach the word today, such as unclean. The passage in Leviticus could be just a matter of cleanliness/hygene, if you look at the preceeding and sucessing passages.
Of course, that'd require you to be 'non ignorant'.
by Ceannairceach » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:46 pm
The non ignorant wrote:-St George wrote:No, it doesn't.
In Leviticus it says that Levites/Jewish priestly class members, who engage in homosexual sex, are 'abominations'. 'Abomination' in the Hebrew has a number of meanings which we don't attach the word today, such as unclean. The passage in Leviticus could be just a matter of cleanliness/hygene, if you look at the preceeding and sucessing passages.
Of course, that'd require you to be 'non ignorant'.
ROMANS 1, 27-32 read it for yourself.
by Persian Cilicia » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:49 pm
Persian Cilicia wrote:Life and Progress wrote:I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not gay, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.
What about rapists, serial killers, terrorists, et al?
There are massive problems with that line of thought, man. Simply massive.
by Persian Cilicia » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:50 pm
Persian Cilicia wrote:Life and Progress wrote:I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not gay, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.
What about rapists, serial killers, terrorists, et al?
There are massive problems with that line of thought, man. Simply massive.
by Make up your own mind » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:53 pm
The non ignorant wrote:-St George wrote:No, it doesn't.
In Leviticus it says that Levites/Jewish priestly class members, who engage in homosexual sex, are 'abominations'. 'Abomination' in the Hebrew has a number of meanings which we don't attach the word today, such as unclean. The passage in Leviticus could be just a matter of cleanliness/hygene, if you look at the preceeding and sucessing passages.
Of course, that'd require you to be 'non ignorant'.
ROMANS 1, 27-32 read it for yourself.
-St George wrote:Romans 1:26-27 has been called a so-called 'clobber passage' by those who would use the Bible and it's texts to justify bigotry but, as is seen with Leviticus (which is both apart of the Old Covenant and thus irrelevant and a set of guidelines for Jewish Priests), they miss the bigger message/aim of the Passage, which partially tells the story of a group of Christians who left the Church, converted to Paganism and engaged firstly in heterosexual 'orgies' as was common with Pagan fertility religions at the time of Paul's writing, and then, as Paul writes, God "God "gave them over" to something: i.e. homosexual activity.
Now, read that last sentence again. God, God, gave them over to homosexuality. Now, if the Big G were against such a thing, why would he do so? Further, as they were formerly heterosexuals, homosexuality would be, as the passage states, "unnatural for them.
Sociobiology wrote:yes because such people always want to believe they have a clue about psychology, come to think of it everyone does, must be a fluke caused by wiring us to model other peoples brains in ours.
by Make up your own mind » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:00 pm
Sociobiology wrote:yes because such people always want to believe they have a clue about psychology, come to think of it everyone does, must be a fluke caused by wiring us to model other peoples brains in ours.
by Dark Side Messiahs » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:39 pm
by -St George » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:11 pm
Make up your own mind wrote:The non ignorant wrote:ROMANS 1, 27-32 read it for yourself.-St George wrote:Romans 1:26-27 has been called a so-called 'clobber passage' by those who would use the Bible and it's texts to justify bigotry but, as is seen with Leviticus (which is both apart of the Old Covenant and thus irrelevant and a set of guidelines for Jewish Priests), they miss the bigger message/aim of the Passage, which partially tells the story of a group of Christians who left the Church, converted to Paganism and engaged firstly in heterosexual 'orgies' as was common with Pagan fertility religions at the time of Paul's writing, and then, as Paul writes, God "God "gave them over" to something: i.e. homosexual activity.
Now, read that last sentence again. God, God, gave them over to homosexuality. Now, if the Big G were against such a thing, why would he do so? Further, as they were formerly heterosexuals, homosexuality would be, as the passage states, "unnatural for them.
viewtopic.php?p=5676120#p5676120
That covers the meatiest passages. Not sure if I'm completely convinced...
by -St George » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:20 pm
Dark Side Messiahs wrote:I find it funny how people use the Bible, a book written over thousands of years ago by men and then complied into one book at the behest of a Pagan king who converted to Christianity, as the end all and be all of whether or not gays should have the right to be married like regular folks because "God said so". Hmmm, that reminds me of something I saw once...
(Image)
How about the ones saying that gay marriage goes against God get an actual argument before coming back to the discussion.
by Ceannairceach » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:22 pm
-St George wrote:Dark Side Messiahs wrote:I find it funny how people use the Bible, a book written over thousands of years ago by men and then complied into one book at the behest of a Pagan king who converted to Christianity, as the end all and be all of whether or not gays should have the right to be married like regular folks because "God said so". Hmmm, that reminds me of something I saw once...
(Image)
How about the ones saying that gay marriage goes against God get an actual argument before coming back to the discussion.
Or at least provide a biblical passage outlawing gay marriage.
by Keronians » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:23 pm
by Intangelon » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:25 pm
by -St George » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:27 pm
by Samuraikoku » Wed Jun 29, 2011 6:17 pm
Persian Cilicia wrote:Life and Progress wrote:I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not gay, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.
I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not a rapist, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.
I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not a serial killer, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.
I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not a terrorist, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.
There are massive problems with that line of thought, man. Simply massive.
by Make up your own mind » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:24 pm
Samuraikoku wrote:Persian Cilicia wrote:
I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not a rapist, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.
I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not a serial killer, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.
I think it's funny how people always come up with "stances" involving matters which do not concern them. If you are not a terrorist, you should let people who are decide what policies they will abide by. It's called mind your own business.
There are massive problems with that line of thought, man. Simply massive.
Has this guy been reported yet or would you like me to do it?
Sociobiology wrote:yes because such people always want to believe they have a clue about psychology, come to think of it everyone does, must be a fluke caused by wiring us to model other peoples brains in ours.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Fartsniffage, Forsher, ML Library, Ravemath, Revinorian, Tungstan
Advertisement