Your stance on gay marriage

[Grave_n_idle]

This much is true.

Lot, for example. Happily married to his... mineral deposit.

Okay, bad example.

Okay... Solomon. Bound solely to his... um... 700 wives. And... 300 concubines.

Uh...

David then. "Beloved" and chosen servant. He's got to be a good example. He lived happily with his eight wives. Including the widow of one of his enemies, and the widow of one of his friends he had murdered. And his concubines, of course.

Crap, that didn't really help, either.

Okay. Abraham. He only had the one wife, right? Yeah. He married his sister, had a kid with her servant, and then took a concubine when she died.

Thinking about it... that's not a great example either.


Sorry, what was the question again?

Well to be fair, the Lot example is like calling someone a necrophiliac because their spouse died.

And Solomon had 1000 mates? I know he was given more wisdom than any other man will ever have, but damn, how did he keep that from turning into a 24/7 feud of jealousy/small civil war? And since women who spend a lot of time together tend to sync up, did he just flee the country one week a month, or what?

Okay, I withdraw Lot. There's plenty of fault to find in his parenting, perhaps, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on the marrying-a-condiment front.

Still, the Biblical precedents for marriage look like a shaky set of prospects.

[Wikkiwallana]

Well to be fair, the Lot example is like calling someone a necrophiliac because their spouse died.

And Solomon had 1000 mates? I know he was given more wisdom than any other man will ever have, but damn, how did he keep that from turning into a 24/7 feud of jealousy/small civil war? And since women who spend a lot of time together tend to sync up, did he just flee the country one week a month, or what?

Okay, I withdraw Lot. There's plenty of fault to find in his parenting, perhaps, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on the marrying-a-condiment front.

Still, the Biblical precedents for marriage look like a shaky set of prospects.

Yeah, Lot has to be in the top 10 "What not to do as a parent" examples. I would go with top 5, but I don't know enough world mythology and actual history to say for sure someone didn't come up with something even worse.

[Grave_n_idle]

Okay, I withdraw Lot. There's plenty of fault to find in his parenting, perhaps, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on the marrying-a-condiment front.

Still, the Biblical precedents for marriage look like a shaky set of prospects.

Yeah, Lot has to be in the top 10 "What not to do as a parent" examples. I would go with top 5, but I don't know enough world mythology and actual history to say for sure someone didn't come up with something even worse.

Well, Cronus, Zeus (must be a family thing) and Tantalus all ate their children. Abraham tries to kill his son, Orchamus had his daughter buried alive, Hercules killed his wife and kids, Cuchulainn accidentally killed his son, Agamemnon had his daughter sacrificed... basically, it sucks to be the wife or the kid in mythology.

[Big Jim P]

Yeah, Lot has to be in the top 10 "What not to do as a parent" examples. I would go with top 5, but I don't know enough world mythology and actual history to say for sure someone didn't come up with something even worse.

Well, Cronus, Zeus (must be a family thing) and Tantalus all ate their children. Abraham tries to kill his son, Orchamus had his daughter buried alive, Hercules killed his wife and kids, Cuchulainn accidentally killed his son, Agamemnon had his daughter sacrificed... basically, it sucks to be the wife or the kid in mythology.

Of course it does. Men wrote the mythology after all.

[The non ignorant]

In my opinion Gay Marriage is wrong.

[The non ignorant]

Also, in the bible it says that gays are worthy of death.

[Arumdaum]

Also, in the bible it says that gays are worthy of death.

In this new religious book I wrote, it says that heterosexuals are worthy of death. *nods*

[Arumdaum]

In my opinion Gay Marriage is wrong.

Why?

[Banold]

Individuals who are gay are no less human then their straight counterparts.

Why should they be treated like 2nd class citizens?

Individual rights = human rights

Marriage is largely a secular contract anyway, when instated by the government, they are obligated to treat every individual equally under the law.

The highest law of the land in the US is the Constitution of 1787.

This should not be a state's rights issue. Human rights are non negotiable, and your rights CANNOT be voted away by a simple plurality of voters.

If you have a religious objection to gay marriage--DON'T! You cannot execute judgement, that's the rightful duty of the LORD. He gave humanity the gift of volition, thus we should respect His will here in Creation.

Gay people aren't going to hell. Only those who refuse the Gospel Truth of the New Testament are.

[Galla-]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

I'm sorry to hear about your mental disorder.

[Daircoill]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

I'm sorry to hear about your mental disorder.

Hahaha! God to see bigots getting the diagnosis they deserve.

Also, in the bible it says that gays are worthy of death.

Don't ever really live up to your name do you? The Bible says lots of things, only the fundamentalist lunatics and religious zealots try to obey them all. It is an old book, written a long time ago, for a world that doesn't exist anymore. It's teachings on compassion and forgiveness are deep and insightful but it's teachings on how to live according to 2000 year old laws are, for obvious reasons, less helpful in a modern context.

[-St George]

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'.

[-Dalia-]

So does that mean Jews are unclean? Or is Leviticus just morally wrong?

[Daircoill]

So does that mean Jews are unclean? Or is Leviticus just morally wrong?

Neither, it means we are trying to use a system developed over 2000 years ago to answer modern questions. The world has changed too much to take all of the teachings of a particular faith and try to apply them literally to the 21st Century.

[-Dalia-]

So does that mean Jews are unclean? Or is Leviticus just morally wrong?

Neither, it means we are trying to use a system developed over 2000 years ago to answer modern questions. The world has changed too much to take all of the teachings of a particular faith and try to apply them literally to the 21st Century.

Yeah, I can believe that. Modern society is much different from normal society 2000 years ago. They really need an update on that bible of theirs.

As for my stance on gay marriage; I don't really care.

[Meowfoundland]

Also, in the bible it says that gays are worthy of death.

Your name is painfully ironic.

[-St George]

So does that mean Jews are unclean? Or is Leviticus just morally wrong?

It means that, afaik, in the eyes of the Torah, Jews who commit acts which are deemed unclean (abomination has more meanings than just that in Leviticus though), then they are.

It also means that Leviticus is irrelevant when it comes to any discussion as to whether the Bible condemns homosexuality as, for Christians, Leviticus doesn't apply in issues of morality.

[Dyakovo]

Also, in the bible it says that gays are worthy of death.

Your name is painfully ironic.

Ya think?

[Ifreann]

*snip*

Wait, really? Seriously?

Because you feel that your religious beliefs are personally beneficial to you, and makes you feel like you're part of something bigger than yourself, you feel perfectly entitled to support denying rights to other people?

Since when did your feelings trump other people's rights?

Ever since he found Gawd, obviously.

[Bottle]

Wait, really? Seriously?

Because you feel that your religious beliefs are personally beneficial to you, and makes you feel like you're part of something bigger than yourself, you feel perfectly entitled to support denying rights to other people?

Since when did your feelings trump other people's rights?

Ever since he found Gawd, obviously.

I'm guessing he's always believed that his feelings are more important than other people's lives. Religious belief is just handy because it agrees with him and tells him that he is right to harm his fellow humans whenever it suits him. That's usually the case with people like that...their selfishness comes first, and religion is just a useful justification for it.

[Ifreann]

Ever since he found Gawd, obviously.

I'm guessing he's always believed that his feelings are more important than other people's lives. Religious belief is just handy because it agrees with him and tells him that he is right to harm his fellow humans whenever it suits him. That's usually the case with people like that...their selfishness comes first, and religion is just a useful justification for it.

Which only makes this supposed conversion from supporting gay rights and equality in general to wanting to void all rights he his God doesn't approve of more suspicious.

[Scientific socks]

1. I am unaware of such a thing but I suspect this was done within a laboroatory if it did occur

2. To me genetic selection by using medical equipment or machines is both unnatural and unnaceptable. Particular genes will be selected deliberately using techniques that no other living thing has access to. Every specie of animal and plant is alive today from the same basic genetic combination method.
Still if you are defining any act that we can do as natural Stalin and Hitler would have just been natural acts upon the human race.

1. Yes, it was done in a laboratory, which point is moot, because things done in laboratories are natural.

2. That "no other living thing" has access to this is moot, you used the term "other", humans are living things, this is admitted by you yourself in using the term "other", like all other living things humans are part of the natural world, their actions are quite "natural". That you've basically just admitted that you're deliberately ignoring elements incompatible with your presupposed prejudices pretty much clenched the deal that you've lost this argument.

1. That is exactly the point. An animal requiring human intervention to reproduce is not close to natural according to essentially everyone but you

2. Humans are the exception to determine what is natural. This is due to advanced technology. You are deliberately failing to understand the definition of natural because you are determined to allow gay marriage regardless of what the public may want

[Scientific socks]

However it does show that marriage outside of religion is both possible and meaningful, a point that some religious people dispute.

Only some. I would hasten to add that marriage outside of the State is both possible and meaningful as well. A point some non-religious people dispute as well.

If you don't require God, who is said to be the author of all creation to sanction your love, then you certainly shouldn't require Uncle Sam either.

Two individuals registered their relationship with the government. It does not necessarily equate to a marriage in the minds of all the public. It equates to a government recognised union. The same kind of union I would support homosexual couples being able to recieve.

[Ifreann]

2. Humans are the exception to determine what is natural. This is due to advanced technology. You are deliberately failing to understand the definition of natural because you are determined to allow gay marriage regardless of what the public may want

Because what is or isn't natural is totally relevant to who should legally be allowed to get married.

[Farnhamia]

2. Humans are the exception to determine what is natural. This is due to advanced technology. You are deliberately failing to understand the definition of natural because you are determined to allow gay marriage regardless of what the public may want

Because what is or isn't natural is totally relevant to who should legally be allowed to get married.

And advanced polling technology seems to indicate that the public's attitude on this issue is changing, with more people approving of allowing gays to marry.