Spring RTS Engine

As for old testament references (written in Hebrew), you don't seem to get the definition of "abomination." The bible in english translations uses that term when describing unclean practices. This includes wearing garments that are made of two types of cloth, eating pork, eating shellfish, having intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, and so on. Unless your Jewish (and even most Jewish people do not follow these laws strictly), I'm fairly certain you've been guilty of some of these "crimes." Luckily for you and me, Jesus does away with all these traditions of cleanliness (Mark 7:17-23).

This quote's about in line with what I've always heard; is it incorrect?

Felix the Cat wrote:Oh great, you guys made me unlurk, you bastards.

*Ultra-conservative wingnuts were demanding that "activist courts" stop "legislating from the bench", and let gay marriage be determined by laws passed by state legislatures. (A viewpoint that I am sympathetic to.) In the case of New Hampshire, that obviously doesn't apply... so what do the ultra-conservative wingnuts do? Well, I read the opinion of one - he said that the NH legislature and the governor overstepped their bounds in recognizing gay marriage, and demanded that the issue be put to a popular vote! Fortunately, other, more rational conservatives called him out for being an idiot, and pointed out that, in the American representative system, laws are passed by elected representatives in the legislature, not by popular vote.

Its hard to get an elected representative in since when one dies is when you can run another with a good chance of success, but its fucking hard to get them out, once they are in they usually stay in for life, they get plenty of donations to keep them in office and can advertise heavily every election year. Hence why a popular vote could very well be a good thing for such legislation. A popular vote census done by the people who support gay marriage, then mailed to all the local representatives may do more for the cause than anything, a representative enjoys hearing what his voters want. I have no problem with gays, maybe flamboyantly homosexual people who run around irritating the shit out of people, but not fairly normal homosexuals.

meh

So why is the state legislating anything about marriage? I think it has no place regulating it at all. I think anyone should be able to marry in any way they see fit but that would require modifying the way they tax you. as you can see its not about anyone's rights or liberty its about money like everything the government is involved in.

@Journier, it's easy to say "we should put this to a popular vote" when it's not your rights up for voting.

The US constitution has amendments protecting equal rights of other groups. Those are not up for a vote. When it comes to "rights" that don't intrude on anybody else's rights, popular vote is just plain wrong.

I still question what business anyone has regulating marriage in any way. Does it not fall under religious freedom? marriage is most definitely a religious thing and should be under no regulation what so ever. Regardless of who you marry or how you do it, regulation of marriage is a violation of the first amendment!

Forboding Angel wrote:No they aren't.

At what point is this unclear?

"If a man should lay with another man, it is an abomination to the lord."

That's unclear?

That's beside the part where a woman is unclean while she is having her period, and she must sit in her tent for 10 days. At the end of the 10 days all her clothes must be burned as well as anything she has sat on. If a man sleeps with a woman while she is unclean he must be stoned to death for it is an abomination against the Lord. Right?

2000 year old book tells me what to do..now i can shut my brain down, and play paperworkszombie for the rest of my life! There is no point discussing believes, because those are not "arguments" you get, just a wordcovered potion of mixed emotion.

Marriage is primarily an economic, rather than religious or sacred, institution.

That is rather a pity, Picasso, since there are but beliefs in the realm of human cognition. A fact is merely a commonly held belief with no legitimate competitor, truth is the commonest collection of beliefs and vision is driven by rationalized faith.

Splice wrote:So why is the state legislating anything about marriage? I think it has no place regulating it at all. I think anyone should be able to marry in any way they see fit but that would require modifying the way they tax you. as you can see its not about anyone's rights or liberty its about money like everything the government is involved in.

Because the purpose of the state is to represent the popular opinion of the people that reside inside of it.

The state serves its people. not the other way around.

If a single state doesnt want gay marriage inside of it, that is its right to have banned.

If you dont like that, move the fuck out and get married somewhere else, dont continue to give them your tax dollars when they dont even represent your opinion.

You always have the choice people the U.S. is a large place with differing laws by different states.

I dont want assault weapons to be banned and I bitch and moan about states that wont allow me to conceal carry a sidearm, what am I going to do? Ill move to a state that has laws the more resemble my perception of how things should be.

I personally dont see why gay marriage should be outright banned, nor do i see why the state should interfere with such issues but I really havent looked into the whole issue and how the state figures it can deny marriages of certain people, as it stands it looks like things are quickly changing in your favor.

And if handful of states want to keep black people as property, that's their right too. Wait, it's not? Why not?

Ohh, right - that pesky constitution. Oh, and the "basic human decency" thing.

Pxtl wrote:And if handful of states want to keep black people as property, that's their right too. Wait, it's not? Why not?

Ohh, right - that pesky constitution. Oh, and the "basic human decency" thing.

amendments to the constitution are what allows it to change with the times. hence slavery is now outlawed, when it was not before. Even though before the civil war the states had much more in the way of States Rights, and that was part of the reason FOR the civil war.

If what the states did was illegal thanks to the constitution, then the case will keep going up through the courts of the land till it hits the so called experts of the constitution the US supreme court and they will deem if it was legal or not to do.

So I dont see what the issue is.

neddiedrow wrote:Marriage is primarily an economic, rather than religious or sacred, institution.

That is rather a pity, Picasso, since there are but beliefs in the realm of human cognition. A fact is merely a commonly held belief with no legitimate competitor, truth is the commonest collection of beliefs and vision is driven by rationalized faith.

a fact is a theory equipped with over 95 % proof that i can inspect anytime i want, and if sb has stated a wellproofen fact, he gains credit, which means i will accept similar statments by him, as long as there occurs no error, for similar true.

a believe might look and act like a theory at first, but given counterproof, the believer will still defend and act after its believe, simply because he needs that thing to be true to not damage parts of his/her personality. Even if all missing links were found, a believer will still go for intdesign, for his believes. And as he ignores all proof and counterproofs, he looses every single bit of informationcredit he ever had. Believers Arguments, if narrowed down usually end up in Tautologys like "I believe in it, because it was said/written so, which is true, because i believe in it!"
If you ask a Nihilbeliever about such a thing you will get a much more truer answer "I asume, that this/that might be true because of [proof1][proof2], i might be wrong, insert [your statement here]" or actually admiting he don┬┤t know.
Now, i have spend endless hours discussing with believers, reaching again, again and again this wall of tautology, were the books is true or it is not true, and even they say it comes to that fact, finally. Now, if you ever had to do with hardheaded fanatics, you will realize sooner or later, that nothing you say makes a diffrence, for them you are a neutral idiot or a evil opressor, making strange sounds with the mouth. You can post all the proof of the world in this Thread and it will convince not a single believer under the sun. It┬┤s a waste of time.. believe me! It┬┤s like talking to machines..

Sick. Just ask the boy who had two dads. He is not mentally well. Having two moms/dads is against nature.

reivanen wrote:Sick. Just ask the boy who had two dads. He is not mentally well. Having two moms/dads is against nature.

What boy who had two dads? Nice post!!

None of that changes the reality that facts are functional common beliefs. They're held in common because of evident support, or at least perceived evident support, and they're only discarded as other "facts" become more supported.

How strange it would be to have no mystery in the world and unrealistic to believe that their is none. There's nothing wrong with having beliefs in my opinion.

Panda wrote:How strange it would be to have no mystery in the world and unrealistic to believe that their is none. There's nothing wrong with having beliefs in my opinion.

To the agnostic, the mystery discourages having unprovable beliefs, not encourages them. When you don't know why something is so, you don't cling to made-up stories about it - you either look for an answer or shelve the problem until one appears. Otherwise, people cling to the made-up answers even when they're proven wrong (see creationism, geocentrism, etc)

tombom wrote:

reivanen wrote:Sick. Just ask the boy who had two dads. He is not mentally well. Having two moms/dads is against nature.

What boy who had two dads? Nice post!!

The boy; there has only ever been one.

I'm not sure which part of nature reivanen is looking at. Homosexaulity is common in many species of animals.

Ducks and Deer and Dolphins spring to mind.

Gay Dolphins? Oh, thats why- fuck you Nature. I never ve done you anything, why did you ruin my holidayz?

Elkvis wrote:

tombom wrote:

reivanen wrote:Sick. Just ask the boy who had two dads. He is not mentally well. Having two moms/dads is against nature.

What boy who had two dads? Nice post!!

The boy; there has only ever been one.

I'm not sure which part of nature reivanen is looking at. Homosexaulity is common in many species of animals.

Ducks and Deer and Dolphins spring to mind.

Yes, to my knowledge there has only been one girl, who has genuinely thought she is a he (transsexual), and claimed to be the first pregnant male. She went to the press, look it up.

From what i read, their son is not mentally well nowadays, due to him having two "dads". The fact his mother thinks shes a he manifests in identity problems for the child.

The exactly same thing does happen, more or less severe in gay adoption /sperm donor cases.

Its not natural to have two moms/dads, it does not exist in nature. Gayness exists thou, and its natural, i agree.