And they said it wouldn't last ...

Professur

Well-Known Member
why bother? the society embracing your version of "marriage" spawned an absurd divorce rate well before the gays got uppity to a level visible by squares like you.

you see, a pimp's love and a square's love are.... different....

I beg to differ. Anyone 'embracing' my version of marriage never divorced in the first place. See article number one of my earlier post. It's the tree hugging hippies who spawned the gays and the divorce rate simultaneously.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
yeah yeah the hippies, the true movers and shakers of society .... THEY DONE DID IT!!!!! (perhaps in a secret conspiracy with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! and HERBERT HOOVER!)

laughing my mother fucking ass off....
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
The problem with pre-tree hugging hippies Marriage is that it often did end in death..often the woman, having been beaten to death by her husband.

Or It didn't end, and there was spousal abuse, child abuse, incest, infidelity, alcohol abuse etc..to live with and no way out for the woman in the equation.

It's absurd to think that a ring, a vow and a blessing automatically makes for a good union...as much to think that the lack thereof automatically makes for a bad union.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent,

I'm glad we're still trying to make divorce the norm when it clearly never has been.

Bravo Profesur.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Let's just assume that that's all true, let's further assume that there's really is a spiteful "christian jesus-god", who hates all kind of things, including homosexuality; who the fuck are you, or anyone else around here, even adherents to such religion, to judge gays? Would that job still not be God's?

Of course that is the job of God and it is spelled out quite clearly in the part about "Judge not lest ye be judged." The Bible doesn't say that God hates homosexuals. What it says is that those who lay with their own kind are an abomination in the sight of God.

I'm not saying you or anyone does judge them, but just making the point. Further, would anyone here object to gay civil unions?

Everything that is available as a civil union is available in contract law. The Gays complain that they have no say in their chosen's medical decisions yet there are Enduring Powers of Attorney they can file.

They say that they have no say on the disposal of their chosen's remains after death yet a Last Will and Testament can be filed.

Most of the things they complain about being denied are available as contracts which anyone of any sexual orientation can make with any other person of any sexual orientation.

Civil unions are a farce and a step closer to them rubbing their lifestyle in the faces of an unwilling public. It is about legitimization, not equality.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
If you are talking about the old testament, but the new covenant kind of wipes that theory out.

Please don't tell me that you are one of these people who believes that the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament outweigh the word of the Father. Do you believe that the word of the Son outweighs the word of the father? We are, after all, speaking of God -- and a jealous God at that -- are we not?

If you are talking about Jesus' teachings, well I'll get to you later, but be prepared. This is one area I doubt you have out studied me or can out link me having been an "Ametuer theologian" all my life.

Well hell, you gotta win some of the time. It would be just sad if you didn't.

Here is what I tell Gays who say that Christians, following the teachings of Jesus, should accept Gays.

IF, as the Bible states, the Bible is truly the word of God, and;
IF, as the Bible states, the word of God is absolute, and;
IF, as the Bible states, God declared that those who lay with their own kind are an abomination in His sight, and;
IF, as the Bible states, a day in the life of God is as a thousand years for mankind, and;
IF, as the Bible states, the Earth is five-thousand years old;
What makes them believe that God has changed his mind about them in the last five days?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Just like if you don't want to be around asians or don't want to accept asians right? You don't go out pushing your race so it's ok if we give some other race less rights and they should shut up about it.

Hate to break it to you but there is no gay race because they can't procreate. If they could, then the anus would be a sex organ, which it is not.

Know it. Live it. Love it.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
So again...what's wrong with same-sex Marriage™ so long as they meet the requirements for the use of this term (Civil union+vow+blessing)?

Why shouldn't there be same-sex Marriage if the same rules apply in the same way as different-sex Marriage?

Most states do not recognize an inconsummate marriage and, by definition, Gay marriage is an inconsummate marriage. To be so, the law would have to be redefined to include the anus, mouth, and inanimate objects as sex organs.
 
Well I have not the time nor the will to fully go into this just now, but I can simplify the concept for a sec, but if you take the "golden rule", that all the commandments and all law law rest on loving god above all, and loving your neighbors as you love yourself, you pretty much have what god wants right there, because if you adhere to that simple principle you will not break any of the ten commandments, and if God the father sent Jesus to us to redeem us and make a new covenant, because he loved us and he saw we could not live up to the old one, then you arrive at the point of understanding that all the bizarre laws in the old testament are largely irrelevant, save for the basic precepts, ie. the commandments and such. It is also quite conceivable as many have theorized, that many of the old laws were to protect the people. For instance, eating swine, back in those days could do VERY nasty things to you, but in this day and age, that is no longer the case. Times change, circumstances change and I think it can be logically deduced that God wants our best, yet understands this and allows for it.

It is VERY debatable whether anywhere in the bible is says homosexuality is wrong in as much as the concept of a "loving gay couple". Many theologians believe that the scriptures referred to male on male rape, molestation, and victimization, and not voluntary acts. Regardless, if one follows the teachings of Jesus it would not do to be preaching fire and brimstone to gays. It may be acceptable to offer a solicited opinion on the acts they engage in, but condemnation of any kind would be sinful. We would be called on to love our brethren, sin or no sin. We are not expected to accept behavior that harms us or others, nor not to punish offenders in our society, but we are expected to try to forgive. It is also argued by many theologians, that if indeed God considers consensual homosexual relations to be sinful, then if so it would be a relatively minor sin at that, and certainly forgivable. The bible is not black and white. If it was the infallible word of God, there could be no deviance in translation. Even if there was only one translation, it does not mean that any two people or groups of people would understand the Scriptures to have the same exact meaning. All we can do as humans is our best, which will always fall short of perfection, but that is why Jesus gave the answer that he did when asked about the greatest commandments, because basically if you can earnestly and consistently strive for that, you cannot go too far astray.

Oh and one last thing. Of course gays can use power of attorney, but it would be easier and cheaper for them if there was a standardized format for civil unions. It would be, in my mind, unconstitutional to deny them that.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
... if you take the "golden rule", that all the commandments and all law law rest on loving god above all, and loving your neighbors as you love yourself, you pretty much have what god wants right there, because if you adhere to that simple principle you will not break any of the ten commandments, and if God the father sent Jesus to us to redeem us and make a new covenant, because he loved us and he saw we could not live up to the old one, then you arrive at the point of understanding that all the bizarre laws in the old testament are largely irrelevant, save for the basic precepts, ie. the commandments and such.

Here is my belief in its entirety on Christianity:

Jesus taught that we should believe in the Father, Believe in the Son, obey the Ten Commandments, and be the best person that we can while we reside on this Earth. A very simple precept.

Other than that, the Bible is a wonderful book of parables, history, and geography.

It is VERY debatable whether anywhere in the bible is says homosexuality is wrong in as much as the concept of a "loving gay couple". Many theologians believe that the scriptures referred to male on male rape, molestation, and victimization, and not voluntary acts.

But then there is that part about those who lie with the beasts of the field ...

Regardless, if one follows the teachings of Jesus it would not do to be preaching fire and brimstone to gays.

It worked in Sodom and Gommorah. BTW, Sodom is the root term of sodomy.

It may be acceptable to offer a solicited opinion on the acts they engage in, but condemnation of any kind would be sinful. We would be called on to love our brethren, sin or no sin.

Hence the term "Love the sinner but hate the sin."

It is also argued by many theologians, that if indeed God considers consensual homosexual relations to be sinful, then if so it would be a relatively minor sin at that, and certainly forgivable.

This would require repentance to God and if one never repents, and ceases the actions of sin which offend god, then God is under no obligation to forgive the sinner. Repenting after death is not an option because if there were any such thing as post-mortem repentance, Hell would be empty.

The bible is not black and white.

Mine is the red letter edition.

Oh and one last thing. Of course gays can use power of attorney, but it would be easier and cheaper for them if there was a standardized format for civil unions.

Enduring Powers of Attorney are free and can be notarized at the participant's bank for free if they have an account or for a nominal fee -- about $3 - $10 -- if they do not. Most realty offices also have a Notary Public. You cannot tell me that getting a license, paying the fees, filing the action, arranging for a ceremony, and planning the reception would be cheaper than a $10 notary.

It would be, in my mind, unconstitutional to deny them that.

There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution, let alone civil unions. There is only the mention of "full faith and credit" among the several states. Hence there can be no unconstitutionality.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html#31
 

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
I don't see where I mentioned God or religion anywhere in that, Paul. I mentioned a vow. That vow is to each other .... (in a church, it is in the sight of God, but not to Him) and sometimes to the community.

In sight of god implies there is a god.

some of us don't think there is.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
the stuff about fags in the bible is old testament. leviticus, right, where the not laying with beasts and all that stuff is discussed, right?

now, in that there part of the bible, god routinely acts like an angry adolescent. jealous, pissy, tantrum-esque, authoritarian. basically, an asshole.

anyone who wants that god can have it.

i would say that the more grown up god is a bit of an improvement. you know, the emotionally mature, tolerant and loving one?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
the stuff about fags in the bible is old testament. leviticus, right, where the not laying with beasts and all that stuff is discussed, right?

now, in that there part of the bible, god routinely acts like an angry adolescent. jealous, pissy, tantrum-esque, authoritarian. basically, an asshole.

anyone who wants that god can have it.

i would say that the more grown up god is a bit of an improvement. you know, the emotionally mature, tolerant and loving one?

So His subjects can be socialist, self-serving, spoiled brats who live for the moment with no vision of the future? Sounds like the Liberal Democrat God to me.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Whoops! There goes another one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489469,00.html

Judge Grants Permission for 1st N.J. Lesbian Divorce

Friday, February 06, 2009

TRENTON, N.J. — Gay marriages performed in other states are recognized in New Jersey for the purpose of divorce, according to a ruling Friday by a state judge presiding over a case in which a lesbian couple married in Canada are seeking to split.

The wider implications weren't immediately clear, but Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson said New Jersey has a long history of recognizing marriages that are valid where they were performed.

The state doesn't let gays marry but does allow civil unions. The state Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples have the rights to the same legal standing as married heterosexual couples.

The women — La Kia Hammond of Trenton and Kinyati Hammond of New Castle, Del. — were married in Victoria, British Columbia, in March 2004 and lived together in North East, Md. In 2005, La Kia, then 29, was found to have a terminal form of muscular dystrophy. She said doctors gave her two years to live.

About three years ago, she left Kinyati and moved with her daughter from a previous relationship to Trenton.

Now, she says, she is in love again and wants to marry before she dies. But without a divorce that's recognized in Canada, her lawyer says, she cannot wed again there.

The lawyer, Stephen Hyland, who is working on the case along with lawyers hired by the American Civil Liberties Union, said his client couldn't simply file for divorce in Canada because only residents can be granted divorces there.

The state attorney general's office had opposed the request, the first of its kind in the state, and was seeking to have the couple's marriage dissolved as if it were a civil union. Officials have not said whether the state will seek an appeal.

As more states and nations recognize gay marriage, the question of how to handle divorces is becoming more common.

Courts in a handful of states, including New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Texas, have wrestled with the question in the past few years. In most cases, judges have ruled that the state would not grant the divorces because the states do not recognize same-sex marriage.

Cases like these are closely watched by advocates for and against gay marriage, partly because allowing gay couples to divorce could open the door to recognizing gay marriage.

"Divorce is part of what marriage does," said Evan Wolfson, the founder of the New York-based gay rights group Freedom to Marry.

Kinyati Hammond has not responded to the divorce legal filings. A current phone number for her could not be found Friday.
 

spike

New Member
So His subjects can be socialist, self-serving, spoiled brats who live for the moment with no vision of the future? Sounds like the Liberal Democrat God to me.

You went pretty far off from what minkey said. Are you sure you have a point?

You think any god that claims to have wiped out two entire cities full of innocent men, women, and children is worth respecting?

Gays and Lesbians should be able to get married or divorced the same as any other couple. What do you think you're proving by linking to divorce articles exactly?
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
You think any god that claims to have wiped out two entire cities full of innocent men, women, and children is worth respecting?

There is only One God.
If you can't respect one out of fear...That's the last option, but a tool none the less.
That's why Jesus died, so those sins wouldn't have to result in death.
 
Top