Same Sex Marriage heads to the Supremes.

Post Reply New Topic

Thank you for that list first thing this morning - I laughed my ass off!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Those laws from Leviticus are strictly for the Jews. Goyim need not follow them.

The reason why God gave Israel 613 commandment was the the early Israelites were only ten hairs away from being Baboons and they needed all the constraint God could impose on them.

ruveyn

So, the rest of us aren't ten hairs away from reverting to a pre-human state?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I find it funny that you are doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing, especially since I actually wasn't cherry-picking.

You do realize that the Bible primarily is in a format similar to a history book, not a rule book... There are only rare instances in the Bible where actual rules are set down, the Quran follows a different format structure.

Btw, I did some checking from wikipedia apparently one of the books you are mentioning actually has something in it concerning slavery that kinda contradicts you:

Order to release heathen slaves at the year of jubilee (Leviticus 25:40, 25:42, 25:44-46)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_code

By release it means free from slavery... Kinda contradicts you doesn't it.

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[2](Leviticus 18:22 KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_and_homosexuality

I really don't want to dig out the King James Bible at the moment, but when I get back I may verify what I have found.

Btw, Cornflake the Bible doesn't have as many things admonishing homosexual activity because the Jewish people kinda took the hint concerning it, they didn't practice homosexual behavior generally, nor did they practice infanticide. In fact, the Romans considered Jews to be backward because they didn't practice infanticide...

Seriously stop trying to smear me because you know you can't win the argument on merits.

The simple fact of the matter is, though, gay rights - including marriage - is a civil rights matter. After all, at one time, racists claimed the Bible could be used to condemn interracial marriage.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point I make which is that your argument is intellectually bankrupt.
You miss that if what you quoted carried any validity whatever by virtue of its source, then so would all of the other things I listed.

Fortunately, many people have grown up and learned to think, instead of mindlessly waving one cherry-picked and poorly translated quote around like it was some sort of ultimate weapon or magic ju-ju, and that is why discussion of same-sex marriage has reached the level it has.
And here's a scary thought - the same thing is happening here in the UK too.
I think certain people are going to feel rather isolated in clinging to their backward viewpoints, and rightly so.

Like it or not, marriage is a civil matter - and you are championing the suppression of equal rights in marriage for a significant proportion of your country's population on imaginary religious grounds.
You really are a thoroughly despicable and shallow character.

That being the case, why did you quote what you did and ignore the other things, if not as some sort of silly appeal to authority?
Utterly pointless and irrelevant noise.

Anyway, I'm sure that none of the Supreme Court justices are going to be citing Leviticus (nor anything else in the Bible), because they don't want to look silly, and because they don't want to be perceived as violating the First Amendment.

Some of the justices may indeed be anti-gay at heart. But, they are going to rule based upon the Constitution. And, the anti-gay crowd really doesn't have anything going for them right now.

I'm guessing that Dick Cheney being the Vice President at the time had something to do with the Federal Marriage Amendment not becoming the Law of the Land.

Dick Cheney's Lesbian daughter Mary actually got married this year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/2 ... 21564.html

Seriously, Cornflake grow up.



It also must be read as a historical text, there are changes over time concerning slavery within the Bible, and if you look at the religious text's Jewish people were not supposed to be held in slavery indefinately, 7 years was the max, and it generally had to do with debt or punishment for a crime...

I really don't feel like getting into a brawl over religious scripture at the moment cause quite frankly if you consider the Exodus, as a whole, it doesn't sound like God was too keen on slavery...



Well obviously you're not one of those people that learned to think, I think I've let you conduct your intentional fallacy long enough.

Slavery =/= not allowing "same-sex" marriage

You are well aware of that that fact.

segregation =/= not allowing "same-sex" marriage

So stop with the false equivalencies.



Just because someone has a different set of values than you, doesn't mean they are somehow inferior to you, so seriously can the elitism.



Marriage is also a religious matter, otherwise marriage ceremonies wouldn't commonly be conducted by Priests, Rabbi, etc.

I think this has reached the point where if you had said that to me or any other member of a forum that I ran, I would have banned you for at least a week to cool down. I really wouldn't care if I agreed with your opinion or not.



Cause if you look at things, the Bible has been all over the map when it comes to slavery...

On the one hand, the Book of Exodus seems to indicate that in all honesty God didn't think too highly of the institution of slavery...

Then you have the items you mentioned, then you have the item I mentioned. It's all over the place concerning slavery, you can use the Bible to justify slavery, but you can also use it to oppose slavery.

When it comes to homosexual acts, the Bible is fairly specific about it being an unnatural act, whether or not animals do it is immaterial, Animals did not eat the fruit from said tree so by their very nature an animal cannot sin cause they don't know any better...

Fact of the matter is I'm against "same-sex" marriage, because it has been shown that once it is legalized, that churches will be sued in order to force them to do things that are against their religious faith. It isn't a hypothetical when it's already happened, Cornflake.

Coffee is legal. No-one is forcing Mormons to drink coffee, nor to serve coffee at church functions.

If a few churches face discrimination because gays have rights then I don't care.

That is not going to happen. Inuyasha's arguments on the subject were shut down in previous threads.

Marriage is a state institution, not a religious one. Their ability to conduct ceremonies around a formal marriage, and to turn down ceremonies for marriages they see as illegitimate, is not under any threat.

Interestingly, the DOA plaintiff is objecting to the over $350,000 in extra taxes she had to pay.

Imagine that, house Republicans sending someone to argue at the Supreme Court on their behalf that some needs to pay extra estate taxes.

I guess we've found the one thing they are willing to tax at higher rates: homosexuality. If Obama restricts his tax hike on people making over $250K based on sexual orientation we may have the makings of a fiscal cliff compromise here...

As marriage is about the best day of two people's lives, I doubt they're going to waste it on making a political statement by forcing a church who doesn't want them there to marry them - gay or straight.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Bible in hand you should give the first 10th of your monthly earnings to the church

When homophobes that use the bible as an argument can show me that they do that I shall take their argument seriously, until then I call bs.

What I was pointing out is the fact that churches are being sued in an attempt to force them to marry and/or allow "same-sex" couples to get married on church grounds...

spongy, I should also point out that there are quite a few people that you would have to take their complaints seriously then...

Quick question, if you are going to throw derogatory terms around, does that mean I get to throw the other derogatory term which arguably is equally as valid right back at you? Just want to check before I do so.

While this is a sensitive subject and the topic revolves around gay people and legislation; some of the comments are straying too far into thinly disguised homophobic attacks which are explicitly forbidden by the site rules. Inuyasha has been suspended pending a discussion between the moderators regarding this issue.