Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:52 am1812 or 1813.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Your stance on gay marriage
Page 70 of 165
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:52 amPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:52 amPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:53 amPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:55 am
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:56 amPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:58 amPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:58 amPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:02 amI leave for a few hours and already I don't know what the hell is going on. I love the internet.
Anyway, I doubt this'll survive much longer, seeing as we're discussing fake Belgian Gay Bars in Afghanistan and arguing over who burnt down the White House when.
For the record, my uncle twice removed was in charge of the team who had to translate the instructions for fire into various languages.
He said French was the easiest to do.
"Throw le fire at le target. Le run.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:02 amPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:29 amScientific 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.
Social norms should either stand on their own or they can kiss my ass. Religion has no place in secular law. And nature is crap for setting good and bad: in nature animals cannibalize their own children all the freaking time, but that would be a horrible practice to permit. If you really want to see what kind of sexuality is natural, I suggest you look up bonobos.
My thoughts
Posted: 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'.
ROMANS 1, 27-32 read it for yourself.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:46 pmThe 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.
I don't really give a shit what the Bible says.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:49 pmPersian 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.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:50 pmPersian 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.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:53 pmThe 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.
viewtopic.php?p=5676120#p5676120
That covers the meatiest passages. Not sure if I'm completely convinced...
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:00 pmI think its funny how you equate consensual relations to being a motherfucking killer or a rapist. Really that analogy applies much better to someone like yourself who is [advocating] infringing on the rights of others. And no, there is no right to deny other people their rights.
You seem to have some massive problems yourself bud.
Edit: added a word.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:39 pmI 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...
How about the ones saying that gay marriage goes against God get an actual argument before coming back to the discussion.
How about the ones saying that gay marriage goes against God get an actual argument before coming back to the discussion.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:11 pmMake 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...
Further to my quoted passage, Romans, like most of Paul's work, is in letter form, thus we cannot say for certain what context is he talking in, and, as with all texts written by now dead authors, we can only guess at the true meaning of his words.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:20 pmDark 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.
Posted: 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.
The bible shouldn't be used at all. Religion has nothing, inherently, to do with marriage, let alone gay marriage. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's, no?
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:23 pmPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:25 pmDunno about anyone else's, but Larry Craig's stance is wide.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:27 pmI meant that if they're arguing that the christian god is against gay marriage then they need to prove it by quoting scripture where god forbids such a thing.
Agreed entirely that religion shouldn't have a say in secular marriage.
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 6:17 pmPersian 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.
Has this guy been reported yet or would you like me to do it?
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:24 pmSamuraikoku 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?
That would be great, thanks.