
Kryzbyn |

What non-Jews are you talking about? Because the non-Jews that existed in Jesus’ time were ROMANS. Jews were not the majority, even in Israel, and any power they held was temporal and granted by the Romans. At best, the Kohanim that were in the Romans pockets could lord it over the lower class Jews in their community, which is where Jesus theoretically...
I'm talking about the Samaritans and other people who did indeed live in the area that were not Jewish or Roman (well I guess depending on who you ask; I'm sure Pilot thought they were all Romans).
Also, I did not mean orthodox Jew as in capital O orthodox. I guess using that term was kind of redundant...
Scott Betts |

Scott, I just want to take this opportunity to say, "hell yeah". Please, provide paypal details so I can give you money to buy your self a beer, from me. It's nice to pleasantly surprised by a Christian.
I continue to entertain the fantasy that one of these days I'll make it to a con where everyone who's ever pledged to buy me a beer and everyone I've ever pledged to buy a beer for on this board is there, and we'll overrun a bar for an evening.

Scott Betts |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Translation: Please be a Democrat. They're slightly less abhorrent on SOME issues.
And WAY less abhorrent on others.
Seriously, I know there's a perception that the two parties are very similar, but they have gigantic differences in proposed policy. I linked their platforms earlier in the thread. They aren't easy reads (around 50 pages) but even if you're not interested in joining them it really ought to be required reading just so you know what's being planned for your country.

![]() |

Asphere wrote:stuffOk then...
Your position (as I understand it) is:
It's understandable if Christians act in a bigoted fashion towards homosexuals, because it's a sin, and their bible tells them they are supposed to act that way towards sinners.Mine (My original point) is:
This is a missunderstanding, and I do not belive Jesus ever intended or thought it was ok for us to hate each other or use his teachings to justify this behavior for any reason. We (Christians) are supposed to act in a way that shows His love, which is most definately not bigotry.
I would say that my position is that it is understandable that Christians who do not support gay marriage are simply following their interpretations of scripture which labels homosexuality as a sin that must be preached against in a judgmental manner devised by Jesus. It would be wrong for them to hurt them physically as a means to punish them but it would also be wrong for them to support a system that encourages the sin that their Bible so explicitly condemns. Because the bible is so contradictory that it gives rise to different types of Christians (you and them for example), Christianity is to blame and criticism of it is fair game. If I were training an employee and his first job was to put together a bicycle and I gave him instructions that were so contradictory that he failed to do it - whose fault is that?
Christians who are bigots toward gays probably do believe they are showing God's "love" by trying to sway their fellow human being away from eternal damnation...If I truly believed in hell and I truly believed that I knew how to avoid it I would be on street corners sharing the information and I certainly would fight against systems I believed promoted a journey straight to hell.

Kirth Gersen |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |

Seriously, I know there's a perception that the two parties are very similar, but they have gigantic differences in proposed policy.
That's a big part of my issue -- at least the Republicans will come right out and admit that they're theocratic servants of our corporate overlords. The Dems will claim to be the opposite, but then turn around and follow the Republican playbook all the way down the line. I'm pretty convinced that Obama, after a hard day in the Oval Office, goes home and pulls off his rubber mask -- revealing that he's really just Dubya, having taken speech lessons in order to get re-elected (and a name change to dodge that pesky two terms rule).

pres man |

pres man wrote:You're still ignoring that the law created two classes of people. Teenagers will eventually be 21. There are no more 18 year olds who are grandfathered in.
I appreciate your view, but I don't think it is really the issue. When drinking age laws were changed, you still had 18, 19, and 20 year olds drinking because they had been "grandfathered in" and 18 year olds that were just a day younger that could not. I don't think having some people for who the hold law applies and others for who the new law applies is as unconstitutional as you are suggesting.
And I would say that it didn't create two classes of people but of relationships. Those same-sex couples that are legal now, if the people in them had gotten divorced and then tried to get remarried in a same-sex marriage, they would find they couldn't. As for people "aging out". Well, in that case, everyone who is married ends up not being married as well. Some due to divorce and some due to death (either of themselves or their spouse), so ultimately every legal current same-sex marriage will ultimately end at some point. It might take closer to a century than just three years, but if the real issue is that it is only temporary, then so is this issue.

Kelsey MacAilbert |

Scott Betts wrote:Seriously, I know there's a perception that the two parties are very similar, but they have gigantic differences in proposed policy.That's a big part of my issue -- at least the Republicans will come right out and admit that they're theocratic servants of our corporate overlords. The Dems will claim to be the opposite, but then turn around and follow the Republican playbook all the way down the line. I'm pretty convinced that Obama, after a hard day in the Oval Office, goes home and pulls off his rubber mask -- revealing that he's really just Dubya, having taken speech lessons in order to get re-elected (and a name change to dodge that pesky two terms rule).
Can I hug you?

pres man |

Asphere wrote:stuffOk then...
Your position (as I understand it) is:
It's understandable if Christians act in a bigoted fashion towards homosexuals, because it's a sin, and their bible tells them they are supposed to act that way towards sinners.Mine (My original point) is:
This is a missunderstanding, and I do not belive Jesus ever intended or thought it was ok for us to hate each other or use his teachings to justify this behavior for any reason. We (Christians) are supposed to act in a way that shows His love, which is most definately not bigotry.
I mean it is not like Jesus ever got violent with some moneychangers or anything. Totally laid back dude. Probably had some nice shrooms he could grow with the touch of his finger.

Kelsey MacAilbert |

Kryzbyn wrote:I mean it is not like Jesus ever got violent with some moneychangers or anything. Totally laid back dude. Probably had some nice shrooms he could grow with the touch of his finger.Asphere wrote:stuffOk then...
Your position (as I understand it) is:
It's understandable if Christians act in a bigoted fashion towards homosexuals, because it's a sin, and their bible tells them they are supposed to act that way towards sinners.Mine (My original point) is:
This is a missunderstanding, and I do not belive Jesus ever intended or thought it was ok for us to hate each other or use his teachings to justify this behavior for any reason. We (Christians) are supposed to act in a way that shows His love, which is most definately not bigotry.
He threw their tables around and wrecked their stuff, but he never hurt any of them. However, there is this statement from him:
"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
Luke 19:27
Same point, different example.

Kryzbyn |

I would say that my position is that it is understandable that Christians who do not support gay marriage are simply following their interpretations of scripture which labels homosexuality as a sin that must be preached against in a judgmental manner devised by Jesus. It would be wrong for them to hurt them physically as a means to punish them but it would also be wrong for them to support a system that encourages the sin that their Bible so explicitly condemns. Because the bible is so contradictory that it gives rise to different types of Christians (you and them for example), Christianity is to blame and criticism of it is fair game. If I were training an employee and his first job was to put together a bicycle and I gave him instructions that were so contradictory that he failed to do it - whose fault is that?Christians who are bigots toward gays probably do believe they are showing God's "love" by trying to sway their fellow human being away from eternal damnation...If I truly believed in hell and I truly believed that I knew how to avoid it I would be on street corners sharing the information and I certainly would fight against systems I believed promoted a journey straight to hell.
Ok, I see what you're saying here.
The disconnect in my mind, is that on a personal basis that would be fine. However, we live in a country that has religious freedom, so on a grand scale, such as legislation preventing gay marriage, that is not fine. That goes beyond the scope of witnessing and worry for their immortal soul. In my humble opinion, at least.
pres man |

pres man wrote:Kryzbyn wrote:I mean it is not like Jesus ever got violent with some moneychangers or anything. Totally laid back dude. Probably had some nice shrooms he could grow with the touch of his finger.Asphere wrote:stuffOk then...
Your position (as I understand it) is:
It's understandable if Christians act in a bigoted fashion towards homosexuals, because it's a sin, and their bible tells them they are supposed to act that way towards sinners.Mine (My original point) is:
This is a missunderstanding, and I do not belive Jesus ever intended or thought it was ok for us to hate each other or use his teachings to justify this behavior for any reason. We (Christians) are supposed to act in a way that shows His love, which is most definately not bigotry.He threw their tables around and wrecked their stuff, but he never hurt any of them. However, there is this statement from him:
"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
Luke 19:27
Same point, different example.
Well in John it says he made a whip and drove them out, but whatever.

pres man |

Ok, I see what you're saying here.
The disconnect in my mind, is that on a personal basis that would be fine. However, we live in a country that has religious freedom, so on a grand scale, such as legislation preventing gay marriage, that is not fine. That goes beyond the scope of witnessing and worry for their immortal soul. In my humble opinion, at least.
Just because people vote for a law based on their religious views, doesn't make the law itself religious in nature. I mean, if people thought stealing was wrong merely because their church told them it was, that wouldn't make laws against stealing religious laws. People can use whatever fraked up reasoning they want to vote. The issue isn't why people vote for a law, it is if the law itself is unconstitutional. Voting against gay marriage because your church told you or because you just get grossed out by the idea is a personal issue, but it isn't a legal one.

![]() |

On a positive note:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10374794-anti-gay-westboro-chu rch-cancels-protest-at-powell-sons-funeral
That is Positive. And here lies just a tad of the problem... Religious Fanaticism at it's best. Hopefully all of them will drink the Kool-aid or catch the UFO to a better place.

![]() |

Maccabee wrote:That is Positive. And here lies just a tad of the problem... Religious Fanaticism at it's best. Hopefully all of them will drink the Kool-aid or catch the UFO to a better place.On a positive note:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10374794-anti-gay-westboro-chu rch-cancels-protest-at-powell-sons-funeral
Or maybe Frank Castle will come visit them.......*strokes chin evily*

![]() |

"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”Luke 19:27
Same point, different example.
A terrible example since that quote is part of a parable, and is in fact something the man in the parable said, taken out of context in a way worthy of Fox News.
But can we please can the religious debate or if you want to continue it please do so in PM, this thread is about the overturning of prop 8 which as a christian, a registered republican (granted I only registered so that I could vote for Ron Paul in the primary and will go back to being an independent/libertarian next election if he isn't running), and a straight man I whole heartedly celebrate.
This is not a thread to discuss the validity of any religion or to nitpick the interpretations of scripture.
Other than to say that you shouldn't attempt to force your religious beliefs on unbelievers, which is a perfectly reasonable point to make.

pres man |

Please stop giving those idiots attention. Seriously, ignore them like you would the crazy guy on the corner claiming the end is nigh. You make them more important every time you bring them up. I mean, can't we all do the figurative turn our back to them and never speak of them again. They are outcasts,shun them.

Hitdice |

Please stop giving those idiots attention. Seriously, ignore them like you would the crazy guy on the corner claiming the end is nigh. You make them more important every time you bring them up. I mean, can't we all do the figurative turn our back to them and never speak of them again. They are outcasts,shun them.
Now now, let's not get into Quaker punishments; we will disapprove...

Don Juan de Doodlebug |

I've been reading The Bible lately, and I think I have always shortchanged the Hebrews. They get down to just as much hot sexytime as those old pagans. Unfortunately, the book doesn't really dwell on it like they would in Ovid or Euripides. Hawt!!
Anyway, I was most titilated by Lot and his daughters (baby, yeah!) and Onan (is he pleasuring himself the whole time, or does he pull out and spend on the ground?), but I only finished Genesis. And why is it that all of the Hebrew chieftains pretend that their wives are their sisters and then pimp them out to local nobility every time they enter a new land? And I'll only mention that unsaitiable satyr, Jacob. Dude got some serious tail.
And speaking of The Bible, how do all you all pro-gay marriage types feel about three people getting married? I'm all for it.

Kryzbyn |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Kryzbyn wrote:Just because people vote for a law based on their religious views, doesn't make the law itself religious in nature. I mean, if people thought stealing was wrong merely because their church told them it was, that wouldn't make laws against stealing religious laws. People can use whatever fraked up reasoning they want to vote. The issue isn't why people vote for a law, it is if the law itself is unconstitutional. Voting against gay marriage because your church told you or because you just get grossed out by the idea is a personal issue, but it isn't a legal one.Ok, I see what you're saying here.
The disconnect in my mind, is that on a personal basis that would be fine. However, we live in a country that has religious freedom, so on a grand scale, such as legislation preventing gay marriage, that is not fine. That goes beyond the scope of witnessing and worry for their immortal soul. In my humble opinion, at least.
Ok...
That wasn't my point.If I witness to a gay person, express my concerns for their immortal soul, and they say thanks but no thanks, I'll pray for them, and keep in touch, if they want.
I will not, then, try to use legal means to keep them from living the lifestyle they've chosen, or cut them off from things other Americans have, through amending the state constitution.
The first part is my duty as a Christian.
The second goes well beyond the scope of that duty.

![]() |

Asphere wrote:
I would say that my position is that it is understandable that Christians who do not support gay marriage are simply following their interpretations of scripture which labels homosexuality as a sin that must be preached against in a judgmental manner devised by Jesus. It would be wrong for them to hurt them physically as a means to punish them but it would also be wrong for them to support a system that encourages the sin that their Bible so explicitly condemns. Because the bible is so contradictory that it gives rise to different types of Christians (you and them for example), Christianity is to blame and criticism of it is fair game. If I were training an employee and his first job was to put together a bicycle and I gave him instructions that were so contradictory that he failed to do it - whose fault is that?Christians who are bigots toward gays probably do believe they are showing God's "love" by trying to sway their fellow human being away from eternal damnation...If I truly believed in hell and I truly believed that I knew how to avoid it I would be on street corners sharing the information and I certainly would fight against systems I believed promoted a journey straight to hell.
Ok, I see what you're saying here.
The disconnect in my mind, is that on a personal basis that would be fine. However, we live in a country that has religious freedom, so on a grand scale, such as legislation preventing gay marriage, that is not fine. That goes beyond the scope of witnessing and worry for their immortal soul. In my humble opinion, at least.
I agree. And if someone who holds these evangelical beliefs are able to truly separate their religion from their duty as a citizen I would be impressed. However, I think those who wish to ban same sex marriage believe that their religion trumps the American ideal of religious freedom. They think that if they stand back and allow same sex marriage to become a legal government protected right they are supporting a conduit to hell because they still believe that gay people choose to be gay. To them, if the government says its legal than its okay for young impressionable people to embrace being gay and that it encourages them to choose to be gay.

![]() |

I've been reading The Bible lately, and I think I have always shortchanged the Hebrews. They get down to just as much hot sexytime as those old pagans. Unfortunately, the book doesn't really dwell on it like they would in Ovid or Euripides. Hawt!!
Anyway, I was most titilated by Lot and his daughters (baby, yeah!) and Onan (is he pleasuring himself the whole time, or does he pull out and spend on the ground?), but I only finished Genesis. And why is it that all of the Hebrew chieftains pretend that their wives are their sisters and then pimp them out to local nobility every time they enter a new land? And I'll only mention that unsaitiable satyr, Jacob. Dude got some serious tail.
And speaking of The Bible, how do all you all pro-gay marriage types feel about three people getting married? I'm all for it.
It is a mitzvah (good deed) for us Heebs to engage in fornications on the Sabbath. I pull this on my wife every weekend despite the fact that she is'nt Jewish and I'm about as observant as an Athiest.

Scott Betts |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Scott Betts wrote:Seriously, I know there's a perception that the two parties are very similar, but they have gigantic differences in proposed policy.That's a big part of my issue -- at least the Republicans will come right out and admit that they're theocratic servants of our corporate overlords. The Dems will claim to be the opposite, but then turn around and follow the Republican playbook all the way down the line.
If that were true, we would never see deadlocks over important issues in Congress. I'm not saying the Democratic party is full of angels. It's not. It's got corrupt people and it's got idiots and it's got corporate interests. But it also has a lot of people like you and like me who actually believe in things and who want to improve the country, and it actually gets some of those things done. That, and the Republican party is terrifying.

Acolyte of Leafar the Loved |

It is a mitzvah (good deed) for us ---- to engage in fornications on the Sabbath
Give me that old-time religion!
(Sorry, Master)
Anyway, hee hee!, but, also:

Kryzbyn |

I agree. And if someone who holds these evangelical beliefs are able to truly separate their religion from their duty as a citizen I would be impressed.
Nice to meet you! However, I doubt I'm the only one...
However, I think those who wish to ban same sex marriage believe that their religion trumps the American ideal of religious freedom. They think that if they stand back and allow same sex marriage to become a legal government protected right they are
supporting a conduit to hell because they still believe that gay people choose to be gay. To them, if the government says its legal than its okay for young impressionable people to embrace being gay and that it encourages them to choose to be gay.
Yes, the slippery slope argument. I can't say I don't agree with you that this happens. I wish I could.

Samnell |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I've been reading The Bible lately, and I think I have always shortchanged the Hebrews. They get down to just as much hot sexytime as those old pagans. Unfortunately, the book doesn't really dwell on it like they would in Ovid or Euripides. Hawt!!
The more extreme strain of sexual puritanism in Christianity is rather out of place in Judaism. Rabbis are expected to be married and have kids and all that. Paul seems to have picked it up from then-contemporary Platonism and mixed it in with his own issues. Seriously, the dude needed therapy. Or at least he could have found a nice Jewish boy in Tarsis. They could have settled down together and opened a flower shop.
Poor guy.

![]() |

Maccabee wrote:It is a mitzvah (good deed) for us ---- to engage in fornications on the SabbathGive me that old-time religion!
(Sorry, Master)
Anyway, hee hee!, but, also:
** spoiler omitted **
I've never known that to be a racial slur, not in 35 years. Nor has any Jew I know. To us, its like a black man using the phrase 'brotha'. I could see how it was maybe negative in WW2 or maybe still in parts of Boston, but other than that I've never heard it used that way. Typically if someone's trying to jerk my chain or get 200lbs of Govt. Issue Jew with PTSD in their face, they use the 'K' word, or the phrase "jewed".
Then later on, when they leave the hospital they can Youtube "Krav Maga" and have an "oops" moment.

![]() |

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:I've been reading The Bible lately, and I think I have always shortchanged the Hebrews. They get down to just as much hot sexytime as those old pagans. Unfortunately, the book doesn't really dwell on it like they would in Ovid or Euripides. Hawt!!The more extreme strain of sexual puritanism in Christianity is rather out of place in Judaism. Rabbis are expected to be married and have kids and all that. Paul seems to have picked it up from then-contemporary Platonism and mixed it in with his own issues. Seriously, the dude needed therapy. Or at least he could have found a nice Jewish boy in Tarsis. They could have settled down together and opened a flower shop.
Poor guy.
Thats well said!

Hitdice |

I've been reading The Bible lately, and I think I have always shortchanged the Hebrews. They get down to just as much hot sexytime as those old pagans. Unfortunately, the book doesn't really dwell on it like they would in Ovid or Euripides. Hawt!!
Anyway, I was most titilated by Lot and his daughters (baby, yeah!) and Onan (is he pleasuring himself the whole time, or does he pull out and spend on the ground?), but I only finished Genesis. And why is it that all of the Hebrew chieftains pretend that their wives are their sisters and then pimp them out to local nobility every time they enter a new land? And I'll only mention that unsaitiable satyr, Jacob. Dude got some serious tail.
And speaking of The Bible, how do all you all pro-gay marriage types feel about three people getting married? I'm all for it.
Alan Moore again? Seriously Doodle?

Don Juan de Doodlebug |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The more extreme strain of sexual puritanism in Christianity is rather out of place in Judaism. Rabbis are expected to be married and have kids and all that. Paul seems to have picked it up from then-contemporary Platonism and mixed it in with his own issues. Seriously, the dude needed therapy. Or at least he could have found a nice Jewish boy in Tarsis. They could have settled down together and opened a flower shop.
Poor guy.
Oh, shiznit, here comes Samnell!
Funny passage from Gore Vidal that I'm doing from memory:
"Ruth and Naomi shared the kind of love that today would have resulted in them opening a ceramics shop in Laguna Beach together."

![]() |

@Mac
Alright, if you're cool with it. Just don't be surprised if later in the thread things start to go south.
I wont stress it, because honestly, if someones highly sensitive to it, a non-jew using the word 'JEW' sounds pretty bigotted too. I've been in more than a few conversations where someone used the word in a negative conontation as if it were a slur. Haters gonna hate.

Don Juan de Doodlebug |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:Alan Moore again? Seriously Doodle?I've been reading The Bible lately, and I think I have always shortchanged the Hebrews. They get down to just as much hot sexytime as those old pagans. Unfortunately, the book doesn't really dwell on it like they would in Ovid or Euripides. Hawt!!
Anyway, I was most titilated by Lot and his daughters (baby, yeah!) and Onan (is he pleasuring himself the whole time, or does he pull out and spend on the ground?), but I only finished Genesis. And why is it that all of the Hebrew chieftains pretend that their wives are their sisters and then pimp them out to local nobility every time they enter a new land? And I'll only mention that unsaitiable satyr, Jacob. Dude got some serious tail.
And speaking of The Bible, how do all you all pro-gay marriage types feel about three people getting married? I'm all for it.
You run into it now and then, when you spend your life hanging out with commies and hippies and bohemian arty-farty types. But my thoughts did touch on Mr. Moore. I think about him a lot. I do believe he is God, after all.

Kirth Gersen |

Typically if someone's trying to jerk my chain or get 200lbs of Govt. Issue Jew with PTSD in their face, they use the 'K' word, or the phrase "jewed". Then later on, when they leave the hospital they can Youtube "Krav Maga" and have an "oops" moment.
They ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore
We don't turn the other cheek, the way we done before
Well, you should've heard that redneck scream when he hit the hardwood floor...
They ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore!

![]() |

IceniQueen wrote:Only if you die in battle. If you die a straw death, it's off to Hel, regardless of how valiant you were before.Kryzbyn wrote:No... I'm a Good warrior and Odin will reward me thus by allowing me to go to Valhalla and live on there with all the best Meade I can drinkFor obvious reasons, to a Christian.
Eternal life in the presence of God is only possible through acknowledgement of Jesus' role in securing your salvation, and living your life accordingly.
What other spiritual health would you need?
Although, this also needs to be clarified... to the old Norse and Germans, if you lived a basically good life... 'Hel' was a place of peaceful rest, not an awful place full of torture. Okay, it doesn't have the exciting all-night parties and all-day brawling celebrated at Valhalla, but it ain't bad.
Norse Hel should not be confused with Christian 'Hell' (although don't get me wrong-- Norse and German mythology does discuss some less savory after-life results if you were a real scumbag in life).

Hitdice |

Hitdice wrote:You run into it now and then, when you spend your life hanging out with commies and hippies and bohemian arty-farty types. But my thoughts did touch on Mr. Moore. I think about him a lot. I do believe he is God, after all.Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:Alan Moore again? Seriously Doodle?I've been reading The Bible lately, and I think I have always shortchanged the Hebrews. They get down to just as much hot sexytime as those old pagans. Unfortunately, the book doesn't really dwell on it like they would in Ovid or Euripides. Hawt!!
Anyway, I was most titilated by Lot and his daughters (baby, yeah!) and Onan (is he pleasuring himself the whole time, or does he pull out and spend on the ground?), but I only finished Genesis. And why is it that all of the Hebrew chieftains pretend that their wives are their sisters and then pimp them out to local nobility every time they enter a new land? And I'll only mention that unsaitiable satyr, Jacob. Dude got some serious tail.
And speaking of The Bible, how do all you all pro-gay marriage types feel about three people getting married? I'm all for it.
Alright, so long as you're not worshipping a snake/sock-puppet. Cause in that case I'd worry.

Acolyte of Leafar the Loved |

Okay, it doesn't have the exciting all-night parties and all-day brawling celebrated at Valhalla, but it ain't bad.
Give me that old-time religion!
QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS HISTORIAN BUFFS:
So, I've been watching Rome and I think it's awesome, but, when they're standing underneath the cow getting slaughtered and get drenched in blood, is that real or is that over-the-top exaggeration?

pres man |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Kirth Gersen wrote:If that were true, we would never see deadlocks over important issues in Congress. I'm not saying the Democratic party is full of angels. It's not. It's got corrupt people and it's got idiots and it's got corporate interests. But it also has a lot of people like you and like me who actually believe in things and who want to improve the country, and it actually gets some of those things done. That, and the Republican party is terrifying.Scott Betts wrote:Seriously, I know there's a perception that the two parties are very similar, but they have gigantic differences in proposed policy.That's a big part of my issue -- at least the Republicans will come right out and admit that they're theocratic servants of our corporate overlords. The Dems will claim to be the opposite, but then turn around and follow the Republican playbook all the way down the line.
You assume that what you view as important is what the people in actually power truly believe is important. Most likely the things that the people in actual power truly believe are important (and not just what they tell their side of the voting public) don't get deadlocked all that often. They want you to be distracted by all the inane crap so you don't see what they are really doing behind the curtain.

![]() |

Why do you keep blaming religion? "on religious grounds", "So long as you (and everyone else) arguing against allowing 'gay marriage' keep defending that narrow "only between a man and a woman" definition based on religious views. . .", "were driven by groups and organizations motivated by religion-- as best as I can tell, religion taken to the point of fanaticism (and here I do say "most", not "all")", . . .
Blaming everything that one doesn't like on religious descrimination (or counter descrmination as it where) get old fast. It;s almost like your saying people with religious views/motives/beliefs are not entitled to have thier own opinions. . .
Beckett--
Give me some arguments that are rational and hold up in the light of logic, that are non-religious, that explain why marriage must only be a man and a woman, and I'll concede your point that one can raise a valid non-religious argument in support of Prop. 8 (although I may still not agree with it). However, remember that such an argument cannot be simply about having children and raising them in the 'nuclear family'-- because then you would have to explain why we still give benefits to childless couples (especially those never intending to have children), and explain how this can be applied to step-parents without still being discriminatory, as opposed to being a benefit for the biological parents only.
Are you not from the UK? I'll give it a try. I'm about to head off, I'm just covering for someone, but I'll give it a try for some link hopefully tonight. Also note, I'm not being sarcastic or condecending. <edit which on a reread isn't what you said> I am justso sick and tired of a.) religion being the big evil on anything and b.) lumping all religion together, especially when it serves a purpose like this.
I'll be looking forward to seeing those links when you get back with them. Also-- you're right to point out that it is wrong to blame all Christians for the actions and attitudes of some Christians. Religions are different, so it's certainly not all religions. Even within broadly defined Religions, branches and sects often hold very different attitudes and beliefs about things in the world. Even within a particular sect, individuals are still individuals and ultimately do not think, feel, and believe exactly the same. So, blaming the gigantic monolith which has many people opposed as well as many people in favor, is a bit out of place.

Hitdice |

Finn K wrote:Okay, it doesn't have the exciting all-night parties and all-day brawling celebrated at Valhalla, but it ain't bad.Give me that old-time religion!
QUESTION FOR RELIGIOUS HISTORIAN BUFFS:
So, I've been watching Rome and I think it's awesome, but, when they're standing underneath the cow getting slaughtered and get drenched in blood, is that real or is that over-the-top exaggeration?
Um, it's fictionalized, but yeah, they did bull sacrifice back then, that's where the Minotaur came from. If fact they used to have Bulls vs Men in the coliseum, thus do we have spanish bullfights in the modern era.
Sorry, never saw the TV series, what was the question?

![]() |

Actually no, I have no idea. This is the first time I (or anyone from Cali I'm deployed with) seems to have heard of Prop 8. Honestly, after reading the majority of this, I', still not entirely clear what exactly happened. It seems like the same thing with the weed Cali tried to/is trying to pull.F'ing Cali. . .
I kind'a resent your remark about my home state... but then again, it is the "granola state" so I suppose I can't object too much... :p
However, if you've got fellow troops who are from California, and they're not aware of this, one can only presume they are utterly politically oblivious (or, if aware of national matters, utterly oblivious of issues on the state level-- 'cause it's been going on for a while, and has not been a quiet issue here). 'Course, while I was in the military, a lot of my fellow troops were thoroughly oblivious to political matters, so what you report about your comrades from California doesn't surprise me too much.

Don Juan de Doodlebug |

Yeah, I know they sacrificed ox and shiznit, but in the show, the wealthy patron stands underneath a cow that's hoisted a floor above them, like in a bell tower. Anyway, they kill the cow and the blood falls down on the supplicant.
My initial reaction was to doubt the veracity of this portrayal of Roman religion, but what do I know? Stranger things have been done.

Ion Raven |

I agree. And if someone who holds these evangelical beliefs are able to truly separate their religion from their duty as a citizen I would be impressed. However, I think those who wish to ban same sex marriage believe that their religion trumps the American ideal of religious freedom. They think that if they stand back and allow same sex marriage to become a legal government protected right they are supporting a conduit to hell because they still believe that gay people choose to be gay. To them, if the government says its legal than its okay for young impressionable people to embrace being gay and that it encourages them to choose to be gay.
I really don't get this. How is this train of thought any different than someone who believes that eating pork is a conduit to a wrathful hell trying to outlaw pork?
There's a line that gets crossed when someone determines the law not on it's social effects but on religious grounds. Where does letting two people of the same sex marry create legal issues or disrupt society? Aren't you just trying to use the law to enforce your religion?
Stealing and killing, those can disrupt society, those can hurt people, those are actions that can prevent the victim's future. To equate Gay Marriage with those is ridiculous. Religion isn't required to have morals, and those that can't understand that will likely have a hard time understanding the separation of religion from law.

Hitdice |

Y'know what the thing is Doodle, the Romans didn't have religion the way we think of it. Much much closer to the Voodoo, superstition on top of superstition mindset. I mean, these were the people who kept an empty altar in the temple, just for the sake of a god they might have missed.
I guess I'm saying it was the most fascist, permissive government ever; no, nothing to do with the US, don't know why you'd even ask.