| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
It was a Roman thing. Don't be obtuse.
Paul didn't even preach to the Jews. |
No, he preached to everyone including Jews. Democratic man he was. |
Hmm, yeah, appears that's about right. Was thinking of the quip about Paul being ordained by 'god' to bring the message to the 'gentiles' but that doesn't stand to reason that he wouldn't go after the Jews as well. |
Certainly he preached to Jews in the diaspora. That's where the complaints came in to Jerusalem from in reference to his insistence that circumcision was no longer a requirement. Anyway, this is way off topic. I go back to my first posting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:38 am Post subject: Re: Homosexual "marriage" |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Olivencia wrote: |
If it's ok for the queers why not:
a. Polygamists?
b. Those who want to marry their sister, brother, father, mother, etc?
c. An animal? |
All fine, they should all be legal. Good luck getting an animal to legally consent, though; the legal consent of all parties should be required. Maybe a dolphin or chimp could consent in some sense, I guess? |
Marriage should be a matter of private contract between consenting individuals.
Recognition of who is really married and who is not should be a matter of personal choice. The government needs to butt out. All government laws regarding marriage should be abolished. Every religion and every individual can then follow whatever belief system they choose.
Regulation of marriage is a matter of imposing a set of bigoted common values on individuals who should be free to choose. People who support such state mandated common values are communists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
banjois
Joined: 14 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
It was a Roman thing. Don't be obtuse.
Paul didn't even preach to the Jews. |
No, he preached to everyone including Jews. Democratic man he was. |
Hmm, yeah, appears that's about right. Was thinking of the quip about Paul being ordained by 'god' to bring the message to the 'gentiles' but that doesn't stand to reason that he wouldn't go after the Jews as well. |
Certainly he preached to Jews in the diaspora. That's where the complaints came in to Jerusalem from in reference to his insistence that circumcision was no longer a requirement. Anyway, this is way off topic. I go back to my first posting. |
Paul is where things started to go wrong in the first place. Can we keep moving off-topic? I'm finding the secondary conversation WAY more interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:23 am Post subject: Re: Homosexual "marriage" |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
If it's ok for the queers why not:
a. Polygamists?
b. Those who want to marry their sister, brother, father, mother, etc?
c. An animal? |
In my opinion, with the exception of incest, these things should be a states' rights issue. Also, if you are going to marry a nonhuman, then he or she had better be intelligent enough to know what that means.
Of course, if you leave up to individual states to decide on controversial issues such as these, then some marriages will inevitably not be recognized in all states. But no one gets everything that they want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
The marriage domino theory. It's often used as an argument against gay marriage. It's pretty stupid though.
Before 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in many states. I'm not aware of gay activists asking for marriage rights before the 1990s. That's a long time.
I'm not aware of any incest or bestiality activists. Even polygamists are so marginalised it's hard for me to imagine them getting any kind of widespread support. The Bible doesn't really say anything against polygamy that I'm aware of and some of the Old Testament prophets were polygamists so I'm not sure why Bible thumping fanatics are so alarmed by it.
I don't agree with marriage rights being determined by states. If interracial marriage was left up to states it wouldn't have been allowed in Alabama or some other Southern states until much later. It doesn't allow for immigration rights either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:31 am Post subject: Re: Homosexual "marriage" |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Olivencia wrote: |
If it's ok for the queers why not:
a. Polygamists?
b. Those who want to marry their sister, brother, father, mother, etc?
c. An animal? |
All fine, they should all be legal. Good luck getting an animal to legally consent, though; the legal consent of all parties should be required. Maybe a dolphin or chimp could consent in some sense, I guess? |
On TV in Thailand I saw a cat and a dog get married. Odds are, their marriage lasted longer than 66% of American marriages... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:38 am Post subject: Re: Homosexual "marriage" |
|
|
| agentX wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Olivencia wrote: |
If it's ok for the queers why not:
a. Polygamists?
b. Those who want to marry their sister, brother, father, mother, etc?
c. An animal? |
All fine, they should all be legal. Good luck getting an animal to legally consent, though; the legal consent of all parties should be required. Maybe a dolphin or chimp could consent in some sense, I guess? |
On TV in Thailand I saw a cat and a dog get married. Odds are, their marriage lasted longer than 66% of American marriages... |
I read on CNN (I think) that a guy in Japan married some virtual reality chick or something on his phone. They had a honeymoon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:05 am Post subject: Re: Homosexual "marriage" |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
If it's ok for the queers why not:
a. Polygamists? |
I'd be fine with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:47 am Post subject: Re: Homosexual "marriage" |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Olivencia wrote: |
If it's ok for the queers why not:
a. Polygamists? |
I'd be fine with that. |
Just imagine if you could marry two women at the same time... That would be a fantasy come true. On the other, it might become a nightmare when you have two wives simultaneously nagging you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| With so many divorces, women having a baby with one guy and marrying another (in no particular order), men with various baby mamas, and pretty much everyone including religious people "fornicating" so much before the marriage, perhaps marriage has become so meaningless that the state shouldn't recognize any marriages. After all, there are plenty of boyfriend/girlfriend couples who have longer and better relationships than many married couples. What's the point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:39 pm Post subject: Re: Homosexual "marriage" |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
If it's ok for the queers why not:
a. Polygamists?
b. Those who want to marry their sister, brother, father, mother, etc?
c. An animal? |
You should check out the constitution one of these days. Other than Christian values, there is hardly an argument which can be made against gay marriage. Should blasphemy be outlawed? How about envy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: Homosexual "marriage" |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
| Olivencia wrote: |
If it's ok for the queers why not:
a. Polygamists?
b. Those who want to marry their sister, brother, father, mother, etc?
c. An animal? |
You should check out the constitution one of these days. Other than Christian values, there is hardly an argument which can be made against gay marriage. Should blasphemy be outlawed? How about envy? |
He'd probably say yes. This kind of argument rarely works on religious fanatics. They'd love to have their religious beliefs legally enforced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's the other way around. Say thank you out loud to Jesus in the public school and watch what happens. Cusre His name no big deal. Nice consistency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| It's the other way around. Say thank you out loud to Jesus in the public school and watch what happens. Cusre His name no big deal. Nice consistency. |
Actually, I'd probably give you the same reaction either way - STFU.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| It's the other way around. Say thank you out loud to Jesus in the public school and watch what happens. Cusre His name no big deal. Nice consistency. |
I will say that bashing Catholics or Christians is no longer politically incorrect; it is rampant in the media, and nothing happens when they do except that a few Catholics will write a letter to the editor. OTOH, publicly bashing Jews or Muslims will get you in a lot of trouble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
