Export thread

I brought this to it's own thread so as to not hijack the book talk thread any further.

Rob King said:

The man has a very traditional view of marriage, so what? I'm not sure I understand why disagreement on societal issues is grounds for disliking the man. I like both Richard Dawkins and Phillip Pullman (well, as much as one can without actually knowing them) and I would put money on them calling me a weak-minded fool because of my Christianity.

Click to expand...

No, you're right, lesbians and gays are bad humans, and we should not allow them to be legally recognized for their sinning sinning ways by giving them access to legal rights enjoyed by godly married couples. Because god only loves people who love other people the way He wants them too. right. Carry on.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Oi! What? Married gays =/= Affect on my life.

I would MUCH prefer to see happy, loving gay & lesbian couples adopt children and marry than let some of the people I know have natural ones. Some people I know are Christian heterosexuals and they shouldn't be allowed to raise a fish.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Im glad you've finally seen the way. Now do three hail marys and two hello dollys.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

And marriage is a LEGAL contract, not a religious one. So if your religion doesn't like gays that's fine. They don't have to accept them. But it's discrimination to not let them enjoy the full rights and benefits allowed the other members of society. If you think then that it should be called "civil unions", then every STRAIGHT couple who gets married by a justice of the peace should not be "married" either.

Take religion out of the equation and there's NO logical reason why gays/lesbians should be denied the right to marry.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

and in all seriousness. I think that its anyones business. Doesn't hurt me, makes people happy, whats the big fucking deal.

If you dont like it too bad, they are not hurting your ability to do anything.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Silvanesti said:

Now do three hail marys and two hello dollys.

Click to expand...

That needs to go over the door of every United Universalist Church. (or which ever ones openly accept gays.)

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Dave said:

And marriage is a LEGAL contract, not a religious one. So if your religion doesn't like gays that's fine. They don't have to accept them. But it's discrimination to not let them enjoy the full rights and benefits allowed the other members of society. If you think then that it should be called "civil unions", then every STRAIGHT couple who gets married by a justice of the peace should not be "married" either.

Click to expand...

Well i think it started as a religious ceremony, but now has very reall and important legal impact. So if you really care find a church so you can get 'married' and there are churches that accept gay weddings. go to the gov to get your legal marriage and all the legal stuff that goes with it.

edit:

I don't think i am explaining what I mean. What i am trying to say is, if you care about the religious aspect of it then great, go find a church or whatever. That doesn't really matter, the cerimony is just a show and has no impact. Marriage anymore is a legal thing and the gov should not pick and choose who get it.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Dave said:

Oi! What? Married gays =/= Affect on my life.

I would MUCH prefer to see happy, loving gay & lesbian couples adopt children and marry than let some of the people I know have natural ones. Some people I know are Christian heterosexuals and they shouldn't be allowed to raise a fish.

Click to expand...

you know what has an effect on my life? people using =/= as "not equal to" instead of != as it should be.

On the subject of marriage. It shouldn't be a term used by the state to begin with. Expand Civil Unions to cover any couple (Still have to say barring animals) and pass a law making any reference to marriage in the law to henceforth refer to the Civil Union. Then ban the future usage of Marriage in the making of laws, and problem solved. All Couples get the same legal rights, and marriage is left as a religious issue.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Covar said:

you know what has an effect on my life? people using =/= as "not equal to" instead of != as it should be.

On the subject of marriage. It shouldn't be a term used by the state to begin with. Expand Civil Unions to cover any couple (Still have to say barring animals) and pass a law making any reference to marriage in the law to henceforth refer to the Civil Union. Then ban the future usage of Marriage in the making of laws, and problem solved. All Couples get the same legal rights, and marriage is left as a religious issue.

Click to expand...

This.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Silvanesti said:

Well i think it started as a religious ceremony, but now has very reall and important legal impact. So if you really care find a church so you can get 'married' and there are churches that accept gay weddings. go to the gov to get your legal marriage and all the legal stuff that goes with it.

Click to expand...

But why should they have to do both when a ceremony in a church is legally binding? Gays/lesbians should be able to either go to a church that will perform the ceremony, justice of the peace or dangling from a fricking balloon if they want. Straight people do it and it's still all legal. Other than religion, give me a legitimate reason why gays should not marry and I may rethink my stance.

Been saying that for years. Never got an answer.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Covar said:

you know what has an effect on my life? people using =/= as "not equal to" instead of != as it should be.

Click to expand...

Whatchoo talking about? Not equal to is <>!

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Oh seperation of church and state...


"Don't tread on me!...me being middle class white and male! You know, normal! We can still tread on the faggots, muslims and darkies!"

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Covar said:

It shouldn't be a term used by the state to begin with. Expand Civil Unions to cover any couple (Still have to say barring animals)

Click to expand...

Humans are animals, but aside from that, I really don't know why that distinction has to be made. No where in the fight for gay marriage has anyone argued for anything other than consenting adults. That they're human should be readily implied.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Adammon said:

Whatchoo talking about? Not equal to is <>!

Click to expand...

Let us first agree that =/= is nothing more than "equal divided by equal" (1?) and go from there.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Covar said:

Let us first agree that =/= is nothing more than "equal divided by equal" (1?) and go from there.

Click to expand...

It also could be computer forum shortcut for an equal sign with a slash through it.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

ElJuski said:

Oh seperation of church and state...


"Don't tread on me!...me being middle class white and male! You know, normal! We can still tread on the faggots, muslims and darkies!"

Click to expand...

/facepalm...

i

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Dave said:

But why should they have to do both when a ceremony in a church is legally binding? Gays/lesbians should be able to either go to a church that will perform the ceremony, justice of the peace or dangling from a fricking balloon if they want. Straight people do it and it's still all legal. Other than religion, give me a legitimate reason why gays should not marry and I may rethink my stance.

Been saying that for years. Never got an answer.

Click to expand...

because a ceremony in a church is their own faith or choice or whatever. I do not think the government should tell churches that they have to allow gay marraige if they dont want to. It may be fucked up but I don't think that they should be forced to.

And I am saying this for straight or gay couples, they should do they celibration and cerimony where ever they want. But the paperwork is signed at the court.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

/facepalm...

i

Click to expand...

I really hope to our lord and savior TV's Tom Arnold that you realize I'm being completely sarcastic?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

no I did... it still applies.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Silvanesti said:

because a ceremony in a church is their own faith or choice or whatever. I do not think the government should tell churches that they have to allow gay marraige if they dont want to. It may be fucked up but I don't think that they should be forced to.

And I am saying this for straight or gay couples, they should do they celibration and cerimony where ever they want. But the paperwork is signed at the court.

Click to expand...

Nope. The paperwork is for the civil union part, not the marriage. So they go to the courthouse & sign the marriage certificate, but they are not married until the officiant does the deed. At that time he/she signs the marriage license as does the bride/groom and two witnesses - usually the best man/maid of honor. THEN it's legal. Priests/ministers are recognized under the law to be able to wed people so they are acting in a legal framework. This is what should be rescinded. The actual ceremony should be but is not usually superfluous to the process.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Dave said:

The actual ceremony should be but is not usually superfluous to the process.

Click to expand...

And what I am saying is i think it should be totally superfluous, just a fun thing to do if you want to.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

"Do you support gay marriage?"
"Well, first of all, I oppose ALL marriage." - Granddad, The Boondocks

I support the complete secularization of all legal ramifications of marriage and granting all rights and responsibilities therein to any two people, to be applied equally in all respects.

I believe the problem stems from the use of the word "marriage." So let's stop using the word. Churches can still perform their "marriages" for who they want to (and not for who they don't), and when you go to get your license it will say "License for Civil Union" at the top instead of "Marriage License," and the civil union will be as good and legally binding as all currently accepted legal aspects of marriage, whether or not you actually got dressed up, went to church, and shoved cake in your loved one's face till they gagged. Problem solved.

Of course, this, many a time, doesn't satisfy the militant. For them it's not about equality, it's about revenge. It's about "we'll show you stupid damn breeders, we're going to get MARRIED in YOUR church and crush YOUR VALUES like potato bugs under our birkenstocks and there's NOTHING YOU CAN DO about it! Where is your GOD NOW?!"

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

no I did... it still applies.

Click to expand...

Hey just so long as you could figure it out.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

If you can't tell, the fact that my gay friends can't get married pisses me off. They've been together longer than any married couple I know and yet if one falls sick the other can't visit him in the hospital. If one were to have an accident and die, the other would lose everything that was not in his or both of their names. No say in a living will, no say in any legal matters. How is this fair? How is this just?

It's easy to look down from our ivory towers of inscrutability and judge people who are not like us and whose shoes we can never really walk in. We can hide behind whatever bumper sticker mentality we want to justify the inequalities based on nothing more than our own fears.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Adammon said:

Whatchoo talking about? Not equal to is <>!

Click to expand...

≠

Incidentally, I support gay marriage.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

GasBandit said:

"Do you support gay marriage?"
"Well, first of all, I oppose ALL marriage." - Granddad, The Boondocks

I support the complete secularization of all legal ramifications of marriage and granting all rights and responsibilities therein to any two people, to be applied equally in all respects.

I believe the problem stems from the use of the word "marriage." So let's stop using the word. Churches can still perform their "marriages" for who they want to (and not for who they don't), and when you go to get your license it will say "License for Civil Union" at the top instead of "Marriage License," and the civil union will be as good and legally binding as all currently accepted legal aspects of marriage, whether or not you actually got dressed up, went to church, and shoved cake in your loved one's face till they gagged. Problem solved.

Of course, this, many a time, doesn't satisfy the militant. For them it's not about equality, it's about revenge. It's about "we'll show you stupid damn breeders, we're going to get MARRIED in YOUR church and crush YOUR VALUES like potato bugs under our birkenstocks and there's NOTHING YOU CAN DO about it! Where is your GOD NOW?!"

Click to expand...

Because there's NO militant idiots on the opposing side now in power trying to make constitutional amendments to suppress a specific class of people?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Tinwhistler said:

≠

Incidentally, I support gay marriage.

Click to expand...

keystroke?

(yay, )

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Dave said:

If you can't tell, the fact that my gay friends can't get married pisses me off. They've been together longer than any married couple I know and yet if one falls sick the other can't visit him in the hospital. If one were to have an accident and die, the other would lose everything that was not in his or both of their names. No say in a living will, no say in any legal matters. How is this fair? How is this just?

Click to expand...

Its not, its incredibly fucked up. But everything you mentioned is a legal right (though, not a right, if you're gay). and the government should grant that to any couple regardless of gender.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

Because god only loves people who love other people the way He wants them too. right.

Click to expand...

I find starting a discussion with a strawman argument to be in very poor form.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

No, you're right, lesbians and gays are bad humans, and we should not allow them to be legally recognized for their sinning sinning ways by giving them access to legal rights enjoyed by godly

Click to expand...

...I don't think that's what Rob said or even implied.

For the record, I read a lot of authors I don't agree with/like personally but I enjoy their work, BUT I can see how someone could not be able to do that, particularly on some really big issue.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

figmentPez said:

I find starting a discussion with a strawman argument to be in very poor form.

Click to expand...

I find your mother to be in very poor form.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Dave said:

Because there's NO militant idiots on the opposing side now in power trying to make constitutional amendments to suppress a specific class of people?

Click to expand...

Nowhere in my post did I say any of that (and frankly, they're NOT "in power"). But since you brought it up, I'd have to say those people have been less damaging to the gay rights cause than the militant gays have been. Things were actually going pretty fast down the track to acceptance and equality until activists started stamping their feet and shouting NOW NOW NOW a couple years ago. That just gave the gay-haters a caricature to rally around and organize against.

Really, as often as not, protesting damages the protester's position as much if not more than that which they are protesting against, because often the protester on the street is a brainless twat, representative of the weakest and least resourceful minds of his or her subgroup. The better and brighter ones are bringing about change in other ways, sometimes even within the system itself, and possibly even in such a way that nobody notices the change until it's already become normal. Or at the very least, they have a day job.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Just want equality, thanks.

*has less than two weeks*

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

The Ender book series is bad on its own, but in deciding that I don't give a crap about who wrote them. Tolkien could've been a church-raping&woman-burning child molester for all I care, his books are still the same.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

I brought this to it's own thread so as to not hijack the book talk thread any further.

The man has a very traditional view of marriage, so what? I'm not sure I understand why disagreement on societal issues is grounds for disliking the man. I like both Richard Dawkins and Phillip Pullman (well, as much as one can without actually knowing them) and I would put money on them calling me a weak-minded fool because of my Christianity.

Click to expand...

No, you're right, lesbians and gays are bad humans, and we should not allow them to be legally recognized for their sinning sinning ways by giving them access to legal rights enjoyed by godly married couples. Because god only loves people who love other people the way He wants them to. right. Carry on.

Click to expand...

Holy shit. Where did that come from?

A) That is the most incredible strawman I have ever seen constructed, and in true Wizard of Oz style too: brainless. I didn't say anything that even a retarded monkey could possibly even twist into anti-gay-marriage. I can appreciate that what was said might inspire you to create a dialogue about it, but to structure it as a rebuttal to a post that takes no stance on the issue just makes it look dumb.

B) If you are not a zealot, and you are going to argue against a religious anti-gay-marriage zealot, for the love of God, do not do it on his ground. He is the zealot in the situation. If you say things like 'Because god only loves people who love other people the way ... ' then it means that he gets to judge the validity of your argument. Argue with things like 'we live in a secular society, and even though marriage might have religious roots, we would like to modify it for use in our modern age.' Any protests to this will put him in direct conflict with the entirety of civilization. Zealots are used to that, but it helps one sleep better to know that the bears at the zoo like their enclosures too.

C) This part is off topic, but it needs to be said, since I was so maliciously quoted in the OP, and I like people thinking that I'm a functional member of society (as opposed to a bigot.) My point wasn't that Orson Scott Card was right. My point wasn't even that Orson Scott Card was entitled to his view. My point was that it's a bit silly to radically alter your opinion from "like this person" to "dislike this person" based on only one of their opinions.

I again refer to my example with Philip Pullman: I think his criticism of organized religion is shortsighted and elitist. I think he is quite frankly wrong, in his opinion, and I would certainly argue with him about it. But I don't change my measure of his work based on it, or declare that I dislike him as a human being.

Now, you may continue.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I also support Civil Union. I think the word "marriage" has too much religion in it. The religious people don't like to share with people they don't like (wait.... isn't most religion suppose to love thy neighbors? I guess as long they are not gays but that is a different topic)

There are benefits BY the government for married people. This should be equal across the board.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Hm. Yup, gays should be able to get married. I got married by a civil servant to my wife. I see no reason others should be denied just because it's two men or two women.

The reason it has to be the word "married" has already been explained by Dave. Healthcare and property laws all state the word "married" and it would cost a fortune to change it.

They don't have to be married in a church, so that argument is pretty weak.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I think the most frustrating thing about this issue is that it's an overblown semantics issue. The word marriage has come to take on both religious and civil/legal meanings. I think even the most devout fundamentalist (ok, probably not the MOST devout) would be willing to relinquish the civil/legal ability of the marriage if they got to keep the word for its religious meaning.

Let the churches perform "marriages" as each church sees fit for religious purposes, and let the civil and legal benefits to such unions be covered in a blanket "civil union", performed by a legal institution. Separate the ceremony from the legal benefit, separate the semantics, provide legal benefits in an unbiased manner to all couples (is it cool to just ignore the possibility of the 3+ person union for now?), and everybody's happy...well, within reason.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Rob King said:

Holy shit. Where did that come from?

A) That is the most incredible strawman I have ever seen constructed, and in true Wizard of Oz style too: brainless. I didn't say anything that even a retarded monkey could possibly even twist into anti-gay-marriage. I can appreciate that what was said might inspire you to create a dialogue about it, but to structure it as a rebuttal to a post that takes no stance on the issue just makes it look dumb.

B) If you are not a zealot, and you are going to argue against a religious anti-gay-marriage zealot, for the love of God, do not do it on his ground. He is the zealot in the situation. If you say things like 'Because god only loves people who love other people the way ... ' then it means that he gets to judge the validity of your argument. Argue with things like 'we live in a secular society, and even though marriage might have religious roots, we would like to modify it for use in our modern age.' Any protests to this will put him in direct conflict with the entirety of civilization. Zealots are used to that, but it helps one sleep better to know that the bears at the zoo like their enclosures too.

C) This part is off topic, but it needs to be said, since I was so maliciously quoted in the OP, and I like people thinking that I'm a functional member of society (as opposed to a bigot.) My point wasn't that Orson Scott Card was right. My point wasn't even that Orson Scott Card was entitled to his view. My point was that it's a bit silly to radically alter your opinion from \"like this person\" to \"dislike this person\" based on only one of their opinions.

I again refer to my example with Philip Pullman: I think his criticism of organized religion is shortsighted and elitist. I think he is quite frankly wrong, in his opinion, and I would certainly argue with him about it. But I don't change my measure of his work based on it, or declare that I dislike him as a human being.

Now, you may continue.

Click to expand...

Did a Christian just say holy shit and for the love of god on the same post?

awesome.

On the subject of your point's clarification, that it's just as silly that people should change their opinion of a person based on one opinion that person holds-- if he wasn't sitting on the board of a lobbying organization try to legislate that opinion into law I wouldn't have given a flying fuck about the man.

However, the moment a person's "opinion" becomes "action" to remove or otherwise block equal access to legal rights enjoyed by married couples, then people who think it's silly to dislike those who hold such opinions can go give a razor bladed pinecone a blowjob, and deserve no civility from me.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Krisken said:

The reason it has to be the word "married" has already been explained by Dave. Healthcare and property laws all state the word "married" and it would cost a fortune to change it.

Click to expand...

no it wouldn't. Find and replace aside, simply pass a law changing all existing references to marriage to refer to civil unions and then be sure to define civil union as a legal contract in the joining of two persons, or some such legalese.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I agree with GasBandit *shudder* in that it is the word "marriage" that is likely causing some of the biggest problems. It allows politicians who know better (know that what is most at issue here are the rights and benefits a legal marriage) to prey upon their base that doesn't (marriages happen at churches, the church says gays are wrong, why do gays want into our churches?) to get votes. I certainly agree that gay couples deserve the rights of marriage as much as straight couples. Even VAGUELY legit arguments against such a thing don't hold up:

Argument: Next you'll be fighting for NAMBLA's rights.
Rebuttal: Non-starter, children can not form legal consent to sex and this is one of several things where parental consent has been deemed void.

Argument: Next you'll be fighting for polygamous marriage!
Rebuttal: Maybe. It will depend upon how one defines the terms of marriage contract, but gay marriage will not necessarily make legalizing polygamy/polyandry any easier (not the other way around).

Argument: What about people who want to marry their dog?
Rebuttal: Dogs can not form legal consent. What you do in your own home is your business...so long as you don't get caught raping your dog.

Argument: Can inanimate objects form consent?
Rebuttal: No. Don't even try.

Argument: But two straight guys or girls could get married for health insurance benefits and stuff, totally abusing the system like on Boston Legal!
Rebuttal: And what stops straight people from doing the same thing right now?

Argument:......
Rebuttal: Exactly.

Argument: But Jesus!
Rebuttal: Don't marry gays in your church.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Krisken said:

Hm. Yup, gays should be able to get married. I got married by a civil servant to my wife. I see no reason others should be denied just because it's two men or two women.

The reason it has to be the word "married" has already been explained by Dave. Healthcare and property laws all state the word "married" and it would cost a fortune to change it.

They don't have to be married in a church, so that argument is pretty weak.

Click to expand...

Meh, it wouldn't be expensive at all. It would just take:

"WHEREAS: it has been determined that the religious institution of the marriage must be considered separate from the legal recognition of familial civil unions to promote equality and tranquility, all legal and civil rights, responsibilities and arrangements that have involved marriage are now conferred upon the term "Civil Union," and all verbiage in existing law addressing "MARRIAGE" shall now be understood to be referencing Civil Unions, since the Civil Union is now the only such binding arrangement recognized by governmental authority"

or some such. Make it so anybody can say they are married, but it literally doesn't mean a damn thing legally unless they also have a civil union. That way, I could start my own religion, and call the union of two people in love "Eternal wingdingdoodle" and the grand poobah of my church can perform the wingdingdoodle ceremony, and those united in holy eternal wingdingdoodle will still have the same rights as those in that "marriage" thing because they hold the exact same legal documents of civil union.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Covar said:

no it wouldn't. Find and replace aside, simply pass a law changing all existing references to marriage to refer to civil unions and then be sure to define civil union as a legal contract in the joining of two persons, or some such legalese.

Click to expand...

Wait, you're telling me I'm wrong, that it wouldn't take a fortune in time and money to change the word in 50 states, thousands of counties, hundreds of thousands of cities documents?

Covar, I'm sorry. You are oversimplifying to support your position.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Krisken said:

Wait, you're telling me I'm wrong, that it wouldn't take a fortune in time and money to change the word in 50 states, thousands of counties, hundreds of thousands of cities documents?

Covar, I'm sorry. You are oversimplifying to support your position.

Click to expand...

That's not how american law works. Even in our own constitution, the repealed amendments are still there. It's just a few amendments down, there are the "this repeals that" in there. You don't have to go back and find/replace all the verbiage and re-pass the laws over again or any such nonsense. You just pass a new law saying what the change is and what it means, and you're done.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

GasBandit said:

Really, as often as not, protesting damages the protester's position as much if not more than that which they are protesting against, because often the protester on the street is a brainless twat, representative of the weakest and least resourceful minds of his or her subgroup.

Click to expand...

Just so I am clear, anti-gay marriage protest groups are just as inane as militant pro-gay marriage groups then?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

nufan said:

Just so I am clear, anti-gay marriage protest groups are just as inane as militant pro-gay marriage groups then?

Click to expand...

Yes. Basically, anybody standing on a sidewalk with a sign is probably a douchebag, no matter what side of what issue he's on.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Krisken said:

Wait, you're telling me I'm wrong, that it wouldn't take a fortune in time and money to change the word in 50 states, thousands of counties, hundreds of thousands of cities documents?

Covar, I'm sorry. You are oversimplifying to support your position.

Click to expand...

You wouldn't have to physically change the word in every individual document, just equate the terms retroactively and then decide to use the secular term from here on in. I.E., if it came up in a criminal bigamy case where one spouse was wed before the changeover and the other afterward, the "marriage license" and the "civil union license" would be the exact same thing.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Krisken said:

Covar, I'm sorry. You are oversimplifying to support your position.

Click to expand...

and you're over complicating it. Of course something would have to be changed in all 50 states, Marriage is currently a state issue (thankfully). However a state law changing the status of marriage is enough to affect every state, county, and city law that involves marriage. By your logic we would have needed to ratify a new constitution to allow for the public election of senators.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

GasBandit said:

Yes. Basically, anybody standing on a sidewalk with a sign is probably a douchebag, no matter what side of what issue he's on.

Click to expand...

And should really get a job. Seriously, who the hell has time to do all that protesting?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

GasBandit said:

Nowhere in my post did I say any of that (and frankly, they're NOT "in power"). But since you brought it up, I'd have to say those people have been less damaging to the gay rights cause than the militant gays have been. Things were actually going pretty fast down the track to acceptance and equality until activists started stamping their feet and shouting NOW NOW NOW a couple years ago. That just gave the gay-haters a caricature to rally around and organize against.

Really, as often as not, protesting damages the protester's position as much if not more than that which they are protesting against, because often the protester on the street is a brainless twat, representative of the weakest and least resourceful minds of his or her subgroup. The better and brighter ones are bringing about change in other ways, sometimes even within the system itself, and possibly even in such a way that nobody notices the change until it's already become normal. Or at the very least, they have a day job.

Click to expand...

I don't think I agree with you. I think things were fast going down the "it's okay as long as I don't know for sure." path of acceptance (which isn't really much of an acceptance), but I think there's still quite a bit of open dislike that never skipped a beat. Middle america is still very fundamental, and the only rallying the caricatures every made for was a little "See I told you so.", and not "Well, I was okay with you until your buddy over there started protesting." Furthermore, I disagree about who is in power in this situation. We're not just talking about political power. We're talking about everyday social power, which still very much resides in the hands of the majority.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Most laws just retroactively enforced (depending on the law or grandfather in) they (the government) usually don't have to REPLACE previous text unless they are planning to print new ones.

Our Constitution is like that (the U.S. on and Texas). Personally I think the government should do either to make everyone equal

No benefits for married couples (thus no union) or have any family benefits at all. this of course will cost billions in legal services since many laws allow couples to make decision for each other, estate issues, children, parents, etc etc...

OR

Allow unions and just call it Civil Union and gain all the benefits like everyone else. Seriously folks, it is not that complicated.

People in the military (people that I know) takes ADVANTAGE of the marriage bonus just to get extra money. Yes Hetro people takes advantage of the system too. So the argument of two same sex people may get union just for benefits. nothing wrong with that.

And don't even talk about divorce rate. Right now marriage is SOLELY on hetro couples and the numbers are sky rocket. I know many of my gay friends who are together after all the hardship. I don't see them "divorcing" anytime soon. (note: the oldest couple I know have been together for over 50 years now)

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

fade said:

I don't think I agree with you. I think things were fast going down the "it's okay as long as I don't know for sure." path of acceptance (which isn't really much of an acceptance), but I think there's still quite a bit of open dislike that never skipped a beat. Middle america is still very fundamental, and the only rallying the caricatures every made for was a little "See I told you so.", and not "Well, I was okay with you until your buddy over there started protesting." Furthermore, I disagree about who is in power in this situation. We're not just talking about political power. We're talking about everyday social power, which still very much resides in the hands of the majority.

Click to expand...

Well, you have your subjective opinion and I have mine. The way I see it, the cultural acceptance of homosexuality was moving along full steam ahead. Nobody wanted to be called a homophobe, as it was the new scarlet letter. Now it's just an eyeroll. Everywhere you looked, on TV, in newspapers, on the radio, everywhere... homosexuality was becoming more accepted and less feared. Then a vocal minority (of this minority) decided they'd had enough and wanted not only equality but restitution and they wanted it NOW and they were going to chant slogans and hold up traffic until they got it, by gum. Instant backlash. I'd even go so far to say that there'd have been legal gay marriage by 2010 if not for the backlash against the "we're here, we're queer, we're gonna get married in your church, get used to it" crowd.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I kind of have to agree with GasBandit. Back in the days of Stonewall (which is fascinating to read about), it was advantageous for gays to be out and proud and facing off with the cops in kick lines. It worked to rise up and say they were mad as hell and they weren't gonna take it anymore. Now, the more flamboyant elements of the gay community (which are exactly as entitled to the rights as their less flamboyant elements) who seem to appear at every protest and parade only serve to give the more conservative and religious elements of our society someone to point to and say "look at that guy in the banana hammock grabbing that other man's crotch! we were right this whole time!".

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Dorko said:

Argument: But Jesus!
Rebuttal: Don't marry gays in your church.

Click to expand...

Sorry, too late. Churches have already been forced by the government to allow homosexual weddings to happen in church owned bulidings.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I expect you have a link to that handy?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

I expect you have a link to that handy?

Click to expand...

No, I didn't, but I found one fast enough:

NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

"A church group that owns beachfront property discriminated against a lesbian couple by not allowing them to rent the locale for their civil union ceremony, a New Jersey department ruled Monday in a case that has become a flash point in the nation's gay rights battle."

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

thanks. Also I lied, your mom was in great form.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

figmentPez said:

Sorry, too late. Churches have already been forced by the government to allow homosexual weddings to happen in church owned bulidings.

Click to expand...

:blue:


WTF?? The link you provided is not a case of people being married neither BY the church or IN the church!

I didn't read it right now, but did a while ago and if I recall correctly, it was just a matter of discriminating what they rented the building/room/whatever for? Which is NOT 'marrying gays in your church'.

I mean, it's like I was saying: 'fuckin' ******s shouldn't be allowed to marry with us normal people, my church don't allow inter-racial marriage!!' (I know I'm stretching my point a bit). In this case, should a building that is rented by an organisation that belongs to my church be denied to such a couple? No, because that's DISCRIMINATION.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Let civil unions still be marriage and let the religious folk have Super Ultra Pious Marriage. (We have something like that in my old Parish, but it's not called that...)

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

In this case, should a building that is rented by an organisation that belongs to my church be denied to such a couple? No, because that's DISCRIMINATION.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you wrote that sentence correctly. If a church owned a building anywhere but a beachfront in NJ it could legally discriminate and not rent for homosexual weddings. Not all discrimination is illegal, not all discrimination is wrong. That church was, or will be, forced by the government to allow homosexuals to rent that church buildling to have their marriages performed there. That's not the normal course of action for any organization that rents spaces, and certainly not churches.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

:blue:


WTF?? The link you provided is not a case of people being married neither BY the church or IN the church!

I didn't read it right now, but did a while ago and if I recall correctly, it was just a matter of discriminating what they rented the building/room/whatever for? Which is NOT 'marrying gays in your church'.

I mean, it's like I was saying: 'fuckin' ******s shouldn't be allowed to marry with us normal people, my church don't allow inter-racial marriage!!' (I know I'm stretching my point a bit). In this case, should a building that is rented by an organisation that belongs to my church be denied to such a couple? No, because that's DISCRIMINATION.

Click to expand...

Where is the line? Where does discrimination start and freedom of association end? Usually when I read "church-owned beachfront property rented for functions" I think church retreat. Maybe that's just me, or maybe it isn't enough that property be OWNED by a church for it to be given the same exemptions as a church. But clearly we don't have enough details one way or the other here to determine what actually happened in Jersey there.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I got no problem with what anyone wants to do or whom they want marry. If the government forces private churches, business, whatever to not be able to say no to renting their space out I have very, VERY big problems with that.
I have a private business. I rent it out to groups all the time. I also say NO WAY to some groups. It's my business. I get to decide to whom I rent it out to, end of story.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Well yes, then the judge should have judged, and I hope he did, what was the actual use of the place.

Besides that, fig, at least we'll agree that the owner can refuse renting the place depending on what it is going to be used for, but not depending on sexual orientation (see:race, religion, etc.) of the people who're renting it, right? I've given it a bit (a very tiny one) of thought and I think that's probably were the line is.

EDIT: Well I understand that Espy, but should everyone be allowed to deny service based on something like skin color? Or should it be at least something justified like 'those punks looked like they were going to trash my place'*?

*Just to say something, not that I think that's valid.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

Well yes, then the judge should have judged, and I hope he did, what was the actual use of the place.

Besides that, fig, at least we'll agree that the owner can refuse renting the place depending on what it is going to be used for, but not depending on sexual orientation (see:race, religion, etc.) of the people who're renting it, right? I've given it a bit (a very tiny one) of thought and I think that's probably were the line is.

Click to expand...

Why is that? There is a particular group of people I don't rent to because I have concerns that if we do the community around us will associate us with them. Why is that not my prerogative? I'm trying to do what is best for my business and being associated with them could severely hurt our business. Why is it bad that I make that call?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

Did a Christian just say holy shit and for the love of god on the same post?

awesome.

On the subject of your point's clarification, that it's just as silly that people should change their opinion of a person based on one opinion that person holds-- if he wasn't sitting on the board of a lobbying organization try to legislate that opinion into law I wouldn't have given a flying fuck about the man.

However, the moment a person's \"opinion\" becomes \"action\" to remove or otherwise block equal access to legal rights enjoyed by married couples, then people who think it's silly to dislike those who hold such opinions can go give a razor bladed pinecone a blowjob, and deserve no civility from me.

Click to expand...

Alright, are you interpreting this back-and-forth as a fight? Because I'm not really sure what my diction has to do with anything, unless you're trying to attack me on personal grounds, asserting that I'm not a "good Christian" or whatever. And what I do with my pinecones is quite frankly none of your business. Perhaps I reacted with a bit more indignation than was due, but just remember who asserted that I held the exact opposite opinion that I actually do.

Now, to the thrust of your reply: I saw the links the first time through, and my opinion still holds. This man sitting on a board for a anti-gay-marriage organization is not qualitatively any different than another man sitting on a board for an organization trying to push gay-marriage into law. I mean, the other man has an opinion too. Is it somehow more valid because it's the opposite of Orson Scott Card's opinion?

You'll probably argue yes, because you seem to be of the opinion that - because the gay rights movement is taking some sort of positive action, trying to spread new rights to those who didn't have them before, it's somehow more justified. But what if I started an organization trying to win voting rights for six year olds? People would remind me that voting is something that a six year old should not be able to do. This guy is saying the same thing: just instead of six year olds, his target is homosexuals, and instead of voting, the issue at hand is marriage.

I realize that six year olds voting and grown adults marrying persons of the same gender have a few qualitative differences that set them apart. But I don't care enough to find a better example, because as I alluded to in the first paragraph of this reply, I'm actually for gay marriage.

But you would effectively charge Orson Scott Card of a thoughtcrime, which isn't cool. And in the end, perhaps Orson Scott Card isn't justified in his opinion. I know if we were both sitting at a bar, and it came up, I would probably take issue with his view. But if you are of the opinion that he shouldn't want to, or shouldn't be allowed to express that opinion, then I definitely take issue with that.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

EDIT: Well I understand that Espy, but should everyone be allowed to deny service based on something like skin color? Or should it be at least something justified like 'those punks looked like they were going to trash my place'*?

*Just to say something, not that I think that's valid.

Click to expand...

Sure, I agree with that, it shouldn't be based on something so basic. However, a PRIVATE group saying we do not rent out our business to group X due to political reasons is fine with me. That church in NJ can say, we don't want to support a political movement or take sides and allowing this would be to close to that for our liking. I'm alright with that. Don't go there if you don't like it, but to sue them since they don't want to be associated with a political movement? That bothers me.
Does that make sense? What I'm really getting at is that I don't think a group should be forced to do something that gives the impression they agree with "X" movement, no matter what. I guess in this case I don't see it as about skin color/sexual orientation/etc but about a political movement that the church group wants to not be associated with. That's not a bad thing, I don't think a GLBT office should be forced to allow a Pro-Life group to rent out their office space. They may not want to be associate with that movement. It's not because they hate religious people or pro-life people.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

figmentPez said:

I'm not sure you wrote that sentence correctly. If a church owned a building anywhere but a beachfront in NJ it could legally discriminate and not rent for homosexual weddings. Not all discrimination is illegal, not all discrimination is wrong. That church was, or will be, forced by the government to allow homosexuals to rent that church buildling to have their marriages performed there. That's not the normal course of action for any organization that rents spaces, and certainly not churches.

Click to expand...

Tell me, do you think there is actually a possibility that the church is right? That the homosexuals are sinners?

How about a religion that forbids heterosexualism? Would you be okay with that?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern said:

Tell me, do you think there is actually a possibility that the church is right? That the homosexuals are sinners?

How about a religion that forbids heterosexualism? Would you be okay with that?

Click to expand...

I can't answer for him but there are many branches of christianity that have no problem with homosexuality and here is the thing about your first question: Any Christian worth his/her salt will tell you that EVERYONE is a sinner, christian, non-christian, etc. I don't think this is about homosexuality as much as it is about a political movement.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Espy said:

I can't answer for him but there are many branches of christianity that have no problem with homosexuality and here is the thing about your first question: Any Christian worth his/her salt will tell you that EVERYONE is a sinner, christian, non-christian, etc. I don't think this is about homosexuality as much as it is about a political movement.

Click to expand...

right, where are those tons of fag-loving christians that I hear so much about?

and don't argue with "everyone is a sinner", you know that I meant that if homosexuality itself is a sin.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern said:

Tell me, do you think there is actually a possibility that the church is right? That the homosexuals are sinners?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that homosexuality is a sin. (EDIT: I should note that I define homosexuality by action, not by temptation. Someone who is tempted to steal is not a thief. Therefore, someone who is attracted to the same gender is not sinning unless they have sex, or set their mind with intent to commit such deeds.) I also happen to think that every single person ever born is a sinner, in one way or another. It's just the way we're broken. I'm not sure why this is relevant to the discussion. If the church wanted to discriminate against a group that wanted to hold a sock hop I'd still be upset if the government said that was illegal discrimination to do so, even though I find nothing wrong with dancing around with no shoes.

How about a religion that forbids heterosexualism? Would you be okay with that?

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "okay". It would bother me on a personal level, and I would consider them to be wrong, but at the same time I'd be okay with that group existing and believing what they want. I'd certainly be fine if they didn't let heterosexual marriages happen on their property. I'd be fine with them insisting on hiring leaders and staff who agree with and follow their rejection of heterosexuality. They can make whatever strange faces they want at me, and tell me I'd be sinning if I were to get married, to a woman, all they want.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Rob King said:

What the hell man? After blowing your initial response all up so I could say "whoa whoa you being a homosexual shouldn't be a reason to dislike homosexual haters just because they dislike you enough to try to pass laws to prevent you from having rights!" you get all in my face and call my mom a shitbag!

That's just silly! How dare you dislike someone because they hate you? Your dislike is totally harshing on his right to express his hateful opnion of you; I threby declare this is what you mean and accuse you of accusing him of a thoughtcrime! HA! I win! But oh yah, I'm not a bigot, I totally support gay marriage, I just think Orson Scott Card should be allowed to hate who he wants and not have anyone say they dislike him for that reason in MY presence!

Click to expand...

Don't you just hate it when that happens? For what it's worth I'm happy to let him express his opinion. I'm also happy to call him a fuckwit--silly or not.

Also, your mom? total shitbag.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern said:

Tell me, do you think there is actually a possibility that the church is right? That the homosexuals are sinners?

How about a religion that forbids heterosexualism? Would you be okay with that?

Click to expand...

This is a fun post to latch on to. I know it wasn't meant for me, but I hope nobody minds me throwing my two cents in.

I would have no moral issue with a heterosexuality-forbidding religion, much like I have no moral issue with homosexuals. But at the end of the day, I would offer an wry and wistful expression at the realization that it is genetic and cultural suicide. There might be converts as the old ones die off, but it doesn't really have any potential to propagate itself properly.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern said:

right, where are those tons of fag-loving christians that I hear so much about?

and don't argue with "everyone is a sinner", you know that I meant that if homosexuality itself is a sin.

Click to expand...

Calm down there slugger. I'm not interested in a fight. If we can't do this calmly this thread goes bye-bye.

You asked a question and I gave you an answer. There are several mainline (and some not so mainline) denominations in America that allow gay clergy. Lutherans, Episcopal, Church of Christ, and a few others.
As to sin? Man, I'm not God and I'm not here to tell you what is and isn't sin, it's not really important what "I" think is sin. I believe all are sinners, me, you, everyone. I'm no better than anyone else. I believe that there is grace and forgiveness in Christ. How that works out in your life? That's between you and God, not me. I really don't give a poop who anyone has sex with.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern said:

right, where are those tons of fag-loving Christians that I hear so much about?

Click to expand...

I'm one, and the Anglican Church of Canada is a few more. We're a minority, but let's be fair: a global movement of two billion followers is a lot of inertia to redirect, and the whole gay rights thing is only ... what, fifty years old?

You'll see progress: I guarantee it.

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

Crone said:

Don't you just hate it when that happens? For what it's worth I'm happy to let him express his opinion. I'm also happy to call him a fuckwit--silly or not.

Also, your mom? total shitbag.

Click to expand...

/sigh

Sorry you're such a victim. I'm sure you're actually really cool and misunderstood.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I'm sorry you're such a douchebag.

Also? Not a victim, just a troll.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

I'm sorry you're such a douchebag.

Also? Not a victim, just a troll.

Click to expand...

Right.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Rob King said:

This is a fun post to latch on to. I know it wasn't meant for me, but I hope nobody minds me throwing my two cents in.

I would have no moral issue with a heterosexuality-forbidding religion, much like I have no moral issue with homosexuals. But at the end of the day, I would offer an wry and wistful expression at the realization that it is genetic and cultural suicide. There might be converts as the old ones die off, but it doesn't really have any potential to propagate itself properly.

Click to expand...

My point is not about the possibility of propagation, but I haven't got to that part yet. Lets continue:

Would you be okay if that group raised children (adopted or whatever method) and taughed them that heterosexuals are inferiors, and that if they are heterosexuals they are evil and will be punished for that?

I asking this because I am on the opposite side of that question, I always keep hearing the same right about people have the right to have hey own religion and own lives, except, that the moment you even say a word about you faith, it enters others people lives, while is not the complete point, what I want you guys to think, is for a moment, what the possibilities that you are opening when you think that any nutjob can say to they kid:

"You my son, don't deserve my love. Because I have faith in it"

....

okay sorry, I went off-topic and entered in a personal issue I having, forget about it.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Espy said:

Sure, I agree with that, it shouldn't be based on something so basic. However, a PRIVATE group saying we do not rent out our business to group X due to political reasons is fine with me. That church in NJ can say, we don't want to support a political movement or take sides and allowing this would be to close to that for our liking. I'm alright with that. Don't go there if you don't like it, but to sue them since they don't want to be associated with a political movement? That bothers me.
Does that make sense? What I'm really getting at is that I don't think a group should be forced to do something that gives the impression they agree with "X" movement, no matter what. I guess in this case I don't see it as about skin color/sexual orientation/etc but about a political movement that the church group wants to not be associated with. That's not a bad thing, I don't think a GLBT office should be forced to allow a Pro-Life group to rent out their office space. They may not want to be associate with that movement. It's not because they hate religious people or pro-life people.

Click to expand...

It does make sense, but there is a detail I don't get. What is it that you see fine?: not renting for a gay marriage (activity), not renting to LGBT group (organisation), not renting to people who just happen to be gay but want to use it for something entirely unrelated with that (just people of a specific condition).

To me the last one is unfundamented discrimination and should therefore be forbidden, the first one is perfectly fine and dandy, and the second one is a bit on the line: I think right now I agree with you, but should the political waters change and the LGBT movement get to be less political and somehow less activist (this is not the word I'm looking for. I have 'reivindicative' in my head but that's just Spanish) then the denial of service would be less justified.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern said:

okay sorry, I went off-topic and entered in a personal issue I having, forget about it.

Click to expand...

I think this type of argument needs more personal touches to it. Too often it's a hidden pain. All we get to see are the extreme cases. Here on this board we have at LEAST three examples of families who were torn apart and just plain evil towards one of their own simply because of their sexual preference. It's sad and happens too often.

Thank you for sharing that.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern said:

Would you be okay if that group raised children (adopted or whatever method) and taughed them that heterosexuals are inferiors, and that if they are heterosexuals they are evil and will be punished for that?

Click to expand...

That is in no way an inverse of what my church teaches about homosexuality, just for the record.

Legally, I'd be fine with such a group existing. In the United States they are guaranteed the right to whatever religious beliefs they want. EDIT: It'd bother me on an emotional level. The same way the existence of Neo Nazi groups, the KKK, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals and other groups I consider to be promoting dangerous beliefs, but I also know that what disturbs me on an emotional level isn't necessarily what I should act on. end edit

"You my son, don't deserve my love. Because I have faith in it"

Click to expand...

Whoever told you this is a fool, and does not know what love is. What I know from scripture is that there are none who deserve God's love, but that He loves us anyway. Because He loves us, He commands us to love each other in the same way. Now, there are many who would try and change the definition of what love is from what God has shown us, so to truly examine this issue would take a long discussion on what love really is, as it is far more than just a platitude, but the idea that God does not love those who commit homosexual acts simply because He says that such acts are wrong, and wants them to stop, is patently untrue.

God did not arbitrarily decide some acts are sin for no reason. Those things He has declared to be sin are harmful to ourselves and others. He wants us to stop sinning because He wants what is best for us. I know you do not agree, but that is what is true, regardless. Knowing that what is sin causes harm, how would it be loving to allow someone to continue to cause harm and support them in that? It most certainly wouldn't be. If someone is doing something that is causing harm, the only loving course of action is to tell them that what they are doing is wrong.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

It does make sense, but there is a detail I don't get. What is it that you see fine?: not renting for a gay marriage (activity), not renting to LGBT group (organisation), not renting to people who just happen to be gay but want to use it for something entirely unrelated with that (just people of a specific condition).

To me the last one is unfundamented discrimination and should therefore be forbidden, the first one is perfectly fine and dandy, and the second one is a bit on the line: I think right now I agree with you, but should the political waters change and the LGBT movement get to be less political and somehow less activist (this is not the word I'm looking for. I have 'reivindicative' in my head but that's just Spanish) then the denial of service would be less justified.

Click to expand...

Sure, what you are describing is how difficult of a thing it is. It's very, very hard to determine these kind of things. Such as: "Did that person not get that job because they weren't qualified or due to 'X'?"
It's really hard to know that sort of thing. If I don't rent to a religious group or a GLBT group is it because I hate religion or gays? Or is it because I see the community associate us with either of them as bad for business? I can tell you how I see it but people from both of those camps might accuse me of being a GLBT/Christian hater.
I think it's really important we allow private business' the right to use their space how THEY see fit, not how the government see's fit. Does it mean everything is going to be perfect? No way, but it allows for community policing rather than government policing. Let the community decide if they want to go to the church that makes that call.
I know it's not easy, I don't want to pretend that it is, I really struggle with where the line is on these sorts of things.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

figmentPez said:

That is in no way an inverse of what my church teaches about homosexuality, just for the record.

Legally, I'd be fine with such a group existing. In the United States they are guaranteed the right to whatever religious beliefs they want. EDIT: It'd bother me on an emotional level. The same way the existence of Neo Nazi groups, the KKK, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals and other groups I consider to be promoting dangerous beliefs, but I also know that what disturbs me on an emotional level isn't necessarily what I should act on. end edit


Whoever told you this is a fool, and does not know what love is. What I know from scripture is that there are none who deserve God's love, but that He loves us anyway. Because He loves us, He commands us to love each other in the same way. Now, there are many who would try and change the definition of what love is from what God has shown us, so to truly examine this issue would take a long discussion on what love really is, as it is far more than just a platitude, but the idea that God does not love those who commit homosexual acts simply because He says that such acts are wrong, and wants them to stop, is patently untrue.

God did not arbitrarily decide some acts are sin for no reason. Those things He has declared to be sin are harmful to ourselves and others. He wants us to stop sinning because He wants what is best for us. I know you do not agree, but that is what is true, regardless. Knowing that what is sin causes harm, how would it be loving to allow someone to continue to cause harm and support them in that? It most certainly wouldn't be. If someone is doing something that is causing harm, the only loving course of action is to tell them that what they are doing is wrong.

Click to expand...

first: Atheist here, I think that you whole concept of god is just make-believe to give you hope and counters your fears. Are you fine with that "religious" view?

second: Go study history.

third: they don't need to say what I quoted, any idiot (well maybe except you) can tell that is the message.

edit:
Third.point.one: my personal issue was that my family had a sort of religious ceremony gathering last sunday and my sister showed a list of things about how to follow the 10 madaments, guess what topic come up?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern said:

okay sorry, I went off-topic and entered in a personal issue I having, forget about it.

Click to expand...

Don't worry about it. That's what it means to enter into dialogue.

Green_Lantern said:

My point is not about the possibility of propagation, but I haven't got to that part yet. Lets continue:

Would you be okay if that group raised children (adopted or whatever method) and taughed them that heterosexuals are inferiors, and that if they are heterosexuals they are evil and will be punished for that?

I asking this because I am on the opposite side of that question, I always keep hearing the same right about people have the right to have hey own religion and own lives, except, that the moment you even say a word about you faith, it enters others people lives, while is not the complete point, what I want you guys to think, is for a moment, what the possibilities that you are opening when you think that any nutjob can say to they kid:

"You my son, don't deserve my love. Because I have faith in it"

....

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure where to go with that. I would oppose any group that was so bigoted, no matter what side of the sexuality, gender, or racial divide they lay on. That bullshit is not what the world, or even individuals need. So I wouldn't be okay if a sect did that, no. But I'm not okay with denominations that do the opposite, either. There's an issue of love that doesn't get solved there, and reversing the positions just throws contrasting colors on the exact same problem.

I wouldn't argue that such groups have no right to exist, but I would like to think that I would actively live my life in a way to undermine the fundamental problems that give rise to people like that: ignorance, hatred, etc. And when I come into contact with people that have opinions like that, I make it clear why I think they're wrong, and why they are doing more harm than good, even from their side of the fence. I've literally been called a heretic for such disagreements and conversations. Flaming liberals have called me a flaming liberal. I've even had people tell me that I'm an atheist, and a homosexual.

I'm not sure if I'm even still on topic. But I think I responded to what I meant to respond to.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I still dislike Orson Scott Card.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Oh for the love of TARDIS, not this one again...

*sighs*

I might as well get prepared.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

@fig

Firstly, forget that post you answered to. Yep, I was wrong.

Besides that

I know you do not agree, but that is what is true, regardless.

Click to expand...

seriously?

Besides that, I have a bit of a problem giving credit to any religion with a strict/complicated set of specific norms supposedly directly given by god. Given that all of them have some different rules, almost all of them must be wrong. General rules are far better in my book and seem less arbitrary and more believable.

This is a huge point for me. I understand the reasoning that god's commandments don't need to be fully understood but just followed, just like a kid should obey their parents for their own good, but I also take into account that religion is not run by god himself but by people, and if they give me rules that seem arbitrary they probably made them up or they are their interpretation of God's word, but they shouldn't restrict my relationship with him.


Also, I am an agnostic now, but when I was a kid (say, 12) I thought homosexuality was 'unnatural' and therefore bad. I got taught some respect for homosexuals in a christian organisation (not a church). I voiced my opinion and the answer I got was something along the lines of: 'Really? Why do you think that? How can we tell them what love is? Heck, sometimes it seems like WE need to be taught what love is, maybe by them.'

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I think it's also important to remember that our own personal experiences with "GROUP A" are not indicative of everyone who associates with "GROUP A". I got beat up by a couple of black kids when I was 15. I was a little punk with blue hair and weird clothes and they decided I "looked funny".
So I got beat up.
I don't assume all black people hate me or want to beat me up and frankly I get tired of people assuming that just because I'm a christian I must hate gays BUT I understand where it comes from. There are way too many stories like GL's. WAY. TOO. MANY. and shame on Christians who treat anyone like that.
GL, I'm really sorry you have been treated that way, it's terrible. Really shameful and like FP said a terrible representation of the love God wants his followers to show. I'm really sorry.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Dave said:

I think this type of argument needs more personal touches to it. Too often it's a hidden pain. All we get to see are the extreme cases. Here on this board we have at LEAST three examples of families who were torn apart and just plain evil towards one of their own simply because of their sexual preference. It's sad and happens too often.

Thank you for sharing that.

Click to expand...

thank you dave...

... I just feel tired. I feel old, I mean, no offense, but I feel like there is nothing left of my life, there is nothing more to achieve, or hope for, there is no hope at all.

I am near my death, not chronologically, but spiritualy... there wouldn't make a difference.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern said:

first: Atheist here, I think that you whole concept of god is just make-believe to give you hope and counters your fears. Are you fine with that "religious" view?

second: Go study history.

third: they don't need to say what I quoted, any idiot (well maybe except you) can tell that is the message.

edit:
Third.point.one: my personal issue was that my family had a sort of religious ceremony gathering last sunday and my sister showed a list of things about how to follow the 10 madaments, guess what topic come up?

Click to expand...

1. I am fine with you holding and voicing that view. You're welcome to try and convince whoever you want that you're right. I think you're wrong, so I guess in that respect I'm not fine with it, but there are lots of things I think people are wrong about. I don't spend all day dwelling on those things.

2. I have studied history. I'm well aware that my viewpoint is strongly in the minority. Such has always been the case with those who follow Christ. There has always been the Church within the church. Who is right? Only God can judge. Regardless, I will say what I know to be true, especially when asked.

3. What Christians and "christians" proclaim is not always the same as what God has said to men. What others think that Christians/"christians" have told them is not always what has actually been said. Just because you hear one thing being said does not make that the truth of who Jesus Christ is and what He teaches. I'm sorry that you feel marginalized by your family, but regardless of how their actions make you feel, I will still maintain my beliefs, and proclaim the truth as I know it.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I think we can see the problem of this whole topic is pretty much religion base. I think religion tend to stick its head here and there, while some religion and beliefs are fine, but I don't think it should dictate other people's live that does not concern them.

Government provide benefits to its citizens. Gay people are citizens too. They should have the same right as everyone else. The U.S. has establish many things for equality. My religion believe that ANYONE is a sinner to eat meat, but that make you wrong? no, but if you follow my faith, then you are bad person but if you are not, then technically you are not wrong since we don't have the same faith. Also in my parent's faith, dancing is bad and so is swearing (high level sins) so most of us are doom!!!

Some religion believe sex before marriage is bad but they still do it.

We are talking two people (regardless of sexual orientation) wants to have the same benefits that everyone else is getting.

Tax benefits
medical benefits
estate benefits
legal benefits

these are just the few most hetro couple get and some taken for granted. These laws help protect your family, your property, and your rights if your partner should die.

Same sex couple don't get this... why? the only logical reason I can think of is the religious aspect. I know the "ideal" thing the "separation of church and state" but in reality that is not going to happen... why? each person serving in a government seat believe in something (or nothing) and that will influence them one way or another. I think many people (at least the vocal one) are afraid of change and many will fight tooth and nail to prevent the change. I remember something funny my prof told me a while back

Long ago
Sex before marriage is bad
Divorce is bad
same sex marriage is bad


then sex before marriage is ok
Divorce is bad
same sex marriage is bad

now
sex before marriage is ok
Divorce is ok
same sex marriage is ok

I think in the future all three will be ok. Time are changing. Heck less than 200 years ago anyone who is NOT white is not consider a citizen and have no rights in the U.S.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

as I said before, their God only loves those who love people the way He meant them to, which is to say sure he loves the sinning homos, but they are still going to burn because they didn't respect his rules about the dance cards. So sayeth the christians, who are fine that we gays exist, but are very tongue clucking about it. Except not all the Christians say the exact same thing, though they are all damningly certain that God gives them the Absolute Truth, and that any other Christians who speak a different truth are totally faux Christians.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

I still dislike Orson Scott Card.

Click to expand...

and I dislike him for an almost completely different reason. So?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Why is theology even coming into the discussion? You don't need to discuss why in Christianity their God says do this, do that, because it's their belief. You're not going to change that with any reason, because it's not reason that promotes it. It is a relationship of command and obedience. The merits of the command do not apply.

Essentially, turning heads would be about turning beliefs, not about what goes on inside the Christian faith. You're not going to change what a person's holy book says, but whether they believe everything in it.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

as I said before, their God only loves those who love people the way He meant them to, which is to say sure he loves the sinning homos, but they are still going to burn because they didn't respect his rules about the dance cards. So sayeth the christians, who are fine that we gays exist, but are very tongue clucking about it. Except not all the Christians say the exact same thing, though they are all damningly certain that God gives them the Absolute Truth, and that any other Christians who speak a different truth are totally faux Christians.

Click to expand...

yeap, pretty much that.

I also love how the whole thing is built around the principle "Do this to get a reward/Don't do this to don't get punished" system, one things that really drives away is the underline conclusion that they are generous only because they are selfish.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

escushion said:

Why is theology even coming into the discussion?

Click to expand...

because they use the theology to justify the acts of legislation. I would love to have a long debate as to the nature of the secular civil union issues at hand, but NOM for example, presents anti-gay marriage efforts as an attempt to save "religious liberty."

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

escushion said:

Why is theology even coming into the discussion?

Click to expand...

Because most people in this discussion, have a rudimentary set of skills that allow them to realize a obvious conclusion:

Most homophobic movements are religious motivated/justified.

edit: Also, I just wanted to note that I never actually used the words "You are a idiot" in this post, and surely din't deleted them, before posting it.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

seriously?

Click to expand...

Yes, seriously. What I meant was that what is true is true regardless of who believes it. Simply disagreeing with something does not make it false. I'm sorry that I came across as claiming that what I know to be true is absolutely true regardless of evidence, but I'm rather used to getting the argument that "I don't agree with you, therefore anything you've said is absolutely wrong and can't even be examined to see if it's self-consistent." Especially in regards to Christianity. EDIT: in fact, we've already seen quite a bit of that in this thread. I've been responded to with insults, mockery, and people claiming that Christianity can't be true simply because it doesn't sit right with them. end edit

Besides that, I have a bit of a problem giving credit to any religion with a strict/complicated set of specific norms supposedly directly given by god. Given that all of them have some different rules, almost all of them must be wrong. General rules are far better in my book and seem less arbitrary and more believable.

This is a huge point for me. I understand the reasoning that god's commandments don't need to be fully understood but just followed, just like a kid should obey their parents for their own good, but I also take into account that religion is not run by god himself but by people, and if they give me rules that seem arbitrary they probably made them up or they are their interpretation of God's word, but they shouldn't restrict my relationship with him.

Click to expand...

Well, I think your prejudice is holding you back from understanding. I certainly don't teach that God's command's can't be understood. While I will say that fully understanding God is humanly impossible, I don't hold that God wants us to follow unquestioningly. In fact a recurring theme in scripture is "come let us reason together". God wants us to be active participants, and tells us that over and over again. The fact that God has already told us what is right and wrong is no reason for us to think that our understanding plays no role in how we relate to Him. Simply because we have concrete declarations of what is right and wrong, foreverandeveramen, does not mean that such declarations are automatically wrong at some point and therefore wrong altogether.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Point therein: stepping past the "It's wrong because a book claiming to have been written by Divinely inspired men as the hands of God says it's wrong and my God is Never Wrong" arguement the point of the anti-gay movement still seems mighty shakey from a secular logical standpoint

"It's traditional! Preserve traditions!"

Yeah? like slavery?

"Its what our forefathers intended!"
As written by them right there in the Constitution... "Gay Marriage is illegal." Oh wait.

So in the end, the only argument is that its wrong because a god I don't believe exists has told these people it's wrong, and that I should believe them because their god is truthful, while all other gods are fake.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I agree Crone, it's a very poor argument.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

oh yeah? Well your mother smelt of elderberries!

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Espy said:

I agree Crone, it's a very poor argument.

Click to expand...

I second it.

This is why one first page, when you take out religion out of the argument, there isn't a thing wrong for having TWO people (regardless of sex) being together.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

oh yeah? Well your mother smelt of elderberries!

Click to expand...

:moon:

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

figmentPez said:

Yes, seriously. What I meant was that what is true is true regardless of who believes it. Simply disagreeing with something does not make it false. I'm sorry that I came across as claiming that what I know to be true is absolutely true regardless of evidence, but I'm rather used to getting the argument that "I don't agree with you, therefore anything you've said is absolutely wrong and can't even be examined to see if it's self-consistent." Especially in regards to Christianity. EDIT: in fact, we've already seen quite a bit of that in this thread. I've been responded to with insults, mockery, and people claiming that Christianity can't be true simply because it doesn't sit right with them. end edit

Click to expand...

That's exactly how your sentence came through!
Also, using the word 'know' instead of 'believe' doesn't do much good in a discussion. It makes it look like you think you are in posession of absolute and unchallenged truth (especially with how you posted it before).

I more or less get you now, so no worries.

figmentPez said:

Well, I think your prejudice is holding you back from understanding. I certainly don't teach that God's command's can't be understood. While I will say that fully understanding God is humanly impossible, I don't hold that God wants us to follow unquestioningly. In fact a recurring theme in scripture is "come let us reason together". God wants us to be active participants, and tells us that over and over again. The fact that God has already told us what is right and wrong is no reason for us to think that our understanding plays no role in how we relate to Him. Simply because we have concrete declarations of what is right and wrong, foreverandeveramen, does not mean that such declarations are automatically wrong at some point and therefore wrong altogether.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the bolded part. I am not saying that they are ALL necessarily wrong, just that they are more easily challenged. For instance, you say that God invites us to reason and to understand his commandments. You do understad that the bible you read has gone though several translations and sometimes contradicts itself, right? From this it is obvious to me that the commandments are open to interpretation, even if in the smallest bit. And since many churches rewrite them in slightly or strongly different ways, it is difficult to know which set is the right one (if there is one).

Also, all of this comes from what I read in your posts and, if you want, my being very tired. NOT from prejudice. I have been a catholic (in my own way) for most of my life and I still respect and more or less follow tha values I did back then. I just lost faith.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

Point therein: stepping past the "It's wrong because a book claiming to have been written by Divinely inspired men as the hands of God says it's wrong and my God is Never Wrong" arguement the point of the anti-gay movement still seems mighty shakey from a secular logical standpoint

Click to expand...

If that were the sole extent of my argument, that would be pretty weak. I don't believe the Bible simply because it exists and people told me to believe in it. There is ample evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be, while other books and belief systems are not.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------

Chibibar said:

This is why one first page, when you take out religion out of the argument, there isn't a thing wrong for having TWO people (regardless of sex) being together.

Click to expand...

Actually, that remains to be seen. Time will tell what will be known from psychological and scientific studies, sociological impact of homosexuality and other sources besides religion. Just because you assume that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and similiarly assume that all evidence against is solely based on religious bias does not make it so.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

figmentPez said:

If that were the sole extent of my argument, that would be pretty weak. I don't believe the Bible simply because it exists and people told me to believe in it. There is ample evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be, while other books and belief systems are not.

Click to expand...

That's the crux of the problem. I believe that the bible is much more than just a book, others do not. Why on earth should they take it seriously like we do? They shouldn't! They have no reason to.
This is why when we get into these kinds of arguments it's just beating our heads against brick walls to an extent. We are dealing with matters of faith and belief that are bridges we cannot mutually exist together on.
That doesn't mean we don't have things we can discuss and agree on, it's just that if I argue from something and use it as my base of understanding and authority and you don't agree with that then we really can't move very far forward together can we?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

You do understad that the bible you read has gone though several translations and sometimes contradicts itself, right?

Click to expand...

I realize that there are multiple translations of the Bible. However, I do no know of any definitive contradictions aside from simple typographical numerical contradictions (1,000 Israelites vs 100 Iraelites) that are non-doctrinal. I do know that there are many supposed contradictions, but they're pretty much along the lines of someone taking a science text and saying "here it says that electrons travel at the speed of sound, and here it says that electricity travels at the speed of light, so this science textbook contradicts itself!" It's not a contradiction if you examine the concepts being conveyed, rather than preconceptions.

---------- Post added at 08:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 PM ----------

Espy said:

That's the crux of the problem. I believe that the bible is much more than just a book, others do not. Why on earth should they take it seriously like we do? They shouldn't! They have no reason to.

Click to expand...

Well, no reason that has been given in this thread. There exists ample reason to take Jesus Christ seriously, even if they are not aware of it, or have dismissed it out of hand.

This is why when we get into these kinds of arguments it's just beating our heads against brick walls to an extent. We are dealing with matters of faith and belief that are bridges we cannot mutually exist together on.

Click to expand...

I didn't really start posting in this thead looking for a religious debate or argument. I simply wanted to point out a news event I was aware of. Then I was asked questions about what I believe, and I answered.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

figmentPez said:

I don't believe the Bible simply because it exists and people told me to believe in it. There is ample evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be, while other books and belief systems are not.

Click to expand...

Ample evidence? Oh really? Such as?

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Click to expand...

So yes, since you assert there is ample evidence, I await its procurement so that under such fulfillment of the burden of proof, I can repent, take up your god as my saviour and marry a good man. And don't say that isn't your job, the whole Great Commission thing kinda says otherwise.

Unless of course, you selectively choose which part of the Truth Almighty to follow.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

But what is being conveyed in the Bible as a whole or in individual passages is something that two different people may not agree on. The only thing that is impossible to discuss is the exact words used, and as you are saying (if I get you right) one needs to go beyond that literal interpretation (even if only because literal reading is not coherent). Hence why I say that god's commandments are open to interpretation.

With science books you can find explanations about every single little thing and therefore there is not much space for interpretation. The Bible is much more complex and doesn't spell it out so much, so it allows different readings.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

Ample evidence? Oh really? Such as?

Click to expand...

Go here: http://faithcommunitynetwork.com/ Ask your questions. You've already spat in my face, figuratively. Why should I believe you even care what evidence convinced me?

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

tegid said:

With science books you can find explanations about every single little thing and therefore there is not much space for interpretation.

Click to expand...

Oh good grief. Do you really believe this? You can't find explanations of everything in science books, and there is a lot of space for interpretation in advanced sciences. You are aware that the theories of lift and areodyamics the Wright Brothers successfully tested and built their plane on, and those held for decades after, ultimately were proven to be false, aren't you?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

So you're asking someone else to present the ample evidence you claims exists. You can't or won't do it yourself. You've failed the burden of proof part of the assertion. Thought so.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Also, I sincerely think (and please no one be offended. I'm just posting a personal belief, if you want to see it that way) that it's a bit delusional thinking the bible is the exact word of god given that it was transmitted and written by men, and rewritten again.


Aaand I'm thinking I don't understand why you'd want to prove faith. If you do that it stops being faith and becomes knowledge. Is that why you say that you know, fig?

Edit: Also, even if you can prove the Bible is God's word and whatnot, there's the interpretation matter.




I'm asking a partly unrrelated question too: does it say it clearly (or can be easily inferred) in the Bible that the world is 6000 years old?



.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

Aaand I'm thinking I don't understand why you'd want to prove faith. If you do that it stops being faith and becomes knowledge. Is that because you say that you know, fig?

Click to expand...

You and I have very different definitions of faith. If what you believe is evidenced to be true, it does not change faith into something else. Knowledge and faith are two different classes of things. Faith, as the Bible uses the term, is not blind belief in something. Faith is the knowledge based belief that God is who He says He is, and that He will do what He says He will do. It is the assurance for the future that God will continue to be who He is already known to be, the foundation of hope.

---------- Post added at 08:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 PM ----------

tegid said:

I'm asking a partly unrrelated question too: does it say it clearly (or can be easily inferred) in the Bible that the world is 6000 years old?

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It takes quite a bit of math and assumptions to even reach that number (counting ages in genealogies, assuming that all the begats are direct relationships, even in the face of evidence that such phrases often talked about grandsons or great-great-grandsons). Even if someone believes that Genesis is a completely literal book, and that things happened exactly as it recounts, with no room for poetic imagery and/or metaphysical allegory, it still takes more than a simple quotation of scripture to arrive at the approximate timeline of Adam and Eve being ~6,000 years ago.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Token says Stan doesn't get it.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

figmentPez said:

You and I have very different definitions of faith. If what you believe is evidenced to be true, it does not change faith into something else. Knowledge and faith are two different classes of things. Faith, as the Bible uses the term, is not blind belief in something. Faith is the knowledge based belief that God is who He says He is, and that He will do what He says He will do. It is the assurance for the future that God will continue to be who He is already known to be, the foundation of hope.

Click to expand...

Wait wait. Belief IS something different than knowledge. If it's completely proven it isn't belief but knowledge. Although if you mean belief based in a certain amount of knowledge to back it or make it sound but not covering it, that I can accept.

What is a bit more problematic for me is the previous point that there is so much proof that the Bible is the true thing. If that's true, how come there isn't A LOT more people who know about it?

No, it doesn't. It takes quite a bit of math and assumptions to even reach that number (counting ages in genealogies, assuming that all the begats are direct relationships, even in the face of evidence that such phrases often talked about grandsons or great-great-grandsons). Even if someone believes that Genesis is a completely literal book, and that things happened exactly as it recounts, with no room for poetic imagery and/or metaphysical allegory, it still takes more than a simple quotation of scripture to arrive at the approximate timeline of Adam and Eve being ~6,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

Thaat's what I thought, wanted to make sure. Thanks!

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Skipping from the O.P. straight to this because theres no telling whats in those 4 pages...


...seriously, if anyone wants the general pointless blight that is marriage, my condolences and more power to you.


(though I can admittedly understand it having a certain purpose and appeal for those who have been discouraged and outright barred from being a part of it.)

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

Wait wait. Belief IS something different than knowledge. If it's completely proven it isn't belief but knowledge. Although if you mean belief based in a certain amount of knowledge to back it or make it sound but not covering it, that I can accept.

What is a bit more problematic for me is the previous point that there is so much proof that the Bible is the true thing. If that's true, how come there isn't A LOT more people who know about it?

Click to expand...

We're defining words differently. Most knowledge is simply something that is believed. Even raw data involves some kind of belief. I'd rather not devolve into solipsism, or worse, though.

As to why evidence for the Bible isn't more widely known? Well, first and foremost is prejudice. We're all sinners who don't want to look into the mirror and see who we really are. (See Romans 1). As long as we don't face the evidence, we don't have to face ourselves.
- Second is the power of skepticism in philosophy. It's easy to doubt everything, but the consequences of such doubt is destruction of the self as well. Even in face of that, and all the skeptic philosophers who have driven themselves to alcoholism and death, it still remains easier to reject all evidence individually than it is to take it all as a whole and see the big picture. A doesn't prove anything alone, so it's not evidence. B by itself isn't compelling. C is just hearsay.... QuadrupleZF might just be a coincidence...
- Thirdly, a lot of evidence is individual. It means something to one person, but that wouldn't hold the same weight to another. For instance, in the ongoing knowledge of God in my life was the miraculous healing of my older sister's broken neck, during chemotherapy. You can't see the X-rays and CAT scans and other medicial evidence I have seen, not on these forums at least. You can't know the path her life took both before and after. For those reading this post it's just a medical fluke. A random chance thing that is explained as a unusual occurance, even though it has no medical explanation. (skeptecism, again) Or maybe it's easier to believe I'm just lying. More than just personal stories, what is important to one person isn't important to another. To some archeological finds are amazing, to others they're just rocks. To some philosophial arguments hold great sway, to others the most poignant words are flimsy nothing compared to actions.
- Fourth, there's a lot of bad scholarship out there. Same holds true for most other fields though. It's easy to set up strawmen of those doing a poor job.
- Fifth, many Christians don't bother to learn more than it took to convince them of the truth. It's sad but true, there aren't many people who seek to know all might be used to convince anyone.
- and many reasons besides.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

What is a bit more problematic for me is the previous point that there is so much proof that the Bible is the true thing. If that's true, how come there isn't A LOT more people who know about it?

Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence that scriptures are authentic. You can believe that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and that the Pauline Letters were written and sent within a century after the crucifixion of Jesus. However, due to the nature of the writings, the writers, and the circumstances they claim to tell of, the contents of the Testament will forever be under scrutiny.

Which is quite frankly where they belong anyhow. I don't subscribe to the notion that blind faith is the purest faith. Those who have not seen but still believe can have their extra blessing, if there is any. But it isn't for me. I don't believe it's for most people.

If you don't mind the notion of throwing away an afternoon reading Christian literature, I'd encourage you to read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I put it only a half-step behind the bible in importance to a Christian, and to a non-Christian, it might be a valuable look into how an intellectual such as Lewis came to be convinced of the gospel.

Let me be clear: this is not me evangelizing. Mere Christianity isn't the conversion button by a long shot. But I think it will at the very least be enlightening to anyone curious about the mind of a theist.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

*sigh*

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Yo Ranger, got any room in that sauna for me?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Rob King;245150][quote=tegid said:

What is a bit more problematic for me is the previous point that there is so much proof that the Bible is the true thing. If that's true, how come there isn't A LOT more people who know about it?

Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence that scriptures are authentic. You can believe that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and that the Pauline Letters were written and sent within a century after the crucifixion of Jesus. However, due to the nature of the writings, the writers, and the circumstances they claim to tell of, the contents of the Testament will forever be under scrutiny.
[/QUOTE]

That much I know, of course (Well, I thought it was unclear a couple of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses but that's not important). By 'true thing' I mean 'the real word of god', which is what I understood fig was saying.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

bhamv3 said:

Yo Ranger, got any room in that sauna for me?

Click to expand...

Maybe... Do you have beer? Or sausages?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

North_Ranger;245292][quote=bhamv3 said:

Yo Ranger, got any room in that sauna for me?

Click to expand...

Maybe... Do you have beer? Or sausages?[/QUOTE]

Beer, yes. Sausages, just the one.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

tegid said:

Well, I thought it was unclear a couple of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses but that's not important.

Click to expand...

Technically all the gospels where rewritten or transcribed a couple of times some time before the 3rd century when they finally decided what should go in the Bible and what shouldn't or was simply heresy.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

@Li3n;245348][quote=tegid said:

Well, I thought it was unclear a couple of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses but that's not important.

Click to expand...

Technically all the gospels where rewritten or transcribed a couple of times some time before the 3rd century when they finally decided what should go in the Bible and what shouldn't or was simply heresy.[/QUOTE]

When the early church fathers decided what would become scripture and what would not, it wasn't as arbitrary as some might have you believe. Most of the doccuments (including the gospels) were already widely used in the Church. The church in Bobville might not have used the Gospel of John, and the church in Icecream City might have also had readings from the Gospel of the Fonz, but the libraries that the various churches had assembled would have all looked pretty similar to the testament we use now. The most controversial book in the canonization process was the Apocolypse of John, and while some end-of-the-world Christians might lean heavily on it, it's hardly integral to our understanding of the life, works, and message of Jesus.

As far as the proof that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, the lack of evidence to the contrary acutally acts as proof for their authenticity. Christianity was originally seen as a breakaway Jewish sect, and the Jewish authority didn't like that. If the gospels were written within a generation of the death of Jesus, then plenty of jews had the opportunity to contradict what the gospel writers had said. And the Jewish authority would have made a very clear record of any objections. Since there are no contradictions recorded by the Jews, it's very safe to assume that there were none, or if there were: that they were entirely insubstantial.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

My God's realer than your god! *throws a few more books on the fire* No one's said anything to the contrary!

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

There's a lesson to be learned from the ramblings dear Sera, and that lesson is this "credibility be damned, I still get to be righteous, and that matters more than anything."

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I only really read this latest installment of "My [strike]faith[/strike] FACTS!" to be honest. It was the shortest one so far.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Well, if nothing else, discussions like these are revealing in character. Take me for example, I now not only get to dislike Orson Scott Card, but also Rob King and Figpez. That's like a bonus! And I don't have to feel bad for them, because they have their god to console them. And I still get to be gay and heretical! Everyone wins!

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5280336n

LOL.. I love the last line. (I find it very funny and hypocritical)

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Chibibar said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5280336n

LOL.. I love the last line. (I find it very funny and hypocritical)

Click to expand...

That it was spoken by a loud woman in a do-rag and tie-dyed shirt just goes to show you that you can't judge books by covers, I suppose.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

GasBandit;245719][quote=Chibibar said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5280336n

LOL.. I love the last line. (I find it very funny and hypocritical)

Click to expand...

That it was spoken by a loud woman in a do-rag and tie-dyed shirt just goes to show you that you can't judge books by covers, I suppose.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't she know she could catch the gay from that ice cream?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Rob King;245731][quote=GasBandit;245719][quote=Chibibar said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5280336n

LOL.. I love the last line. (I find it very funny and hypocritical)

Click to expand...

That it was spoken by a loud woman in a do-rag and tie-dyed shirt just goes to show you that you can't judge books by covers, I suppose.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't she know she could catch the gay from that ice cream?[/QUOTE]

Heh. I wonder if there is a sign saying, "by accepting this ice cream, you are supporting gay rights" will she still eat it?

I am guessing yes.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

But she's taking measures! She won't give any to the kid, who is vulnerable to the gay and eat it all herserf.

Ahh mothers. Always thinking of their kids

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

GasBandit;244830][quote=nufan said:

Just so I am clear, anti-gay marriage protest groups are just as inane as militant pro-gay marriage groups then?

Click to expand...

Yes. Basically, anybody standing on a sidewalk with a sign is probably a douchebag, no matter what side of what issue he's on.[/QUOTE]

Well! My "Eat at Joe's" sign an I will go somewhere we're more appreciated! :angry:

Also, since I'm sick of talking about this topic with this forum (everyone has posted the same old debates in the last 10 threads about gay marriage) I'll just present one thing to think about.

Without homosexuality, where will lesbian porn come from??

:smug:

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Without homosexuality, where will lesbian porn come from??

Click to expand...

Same place it comes from now, porn actresses getting payed to do it...

Crone said:

Well, if nothing else, discussions like these are revealing in character. Take me for example, I now not only get to dislike Orson Scott Card, but also Rob King and Figpez. That's like a bonus! And I don't have to feel bad for them, because they have their god to console them. And I still get to be gay and heretical! Everyone wins!

Click to expand...

I don't think being an unbeliever makes you heretical...

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

@Li3n said:

I don't think being an unbeliever makes you heretical...

Click to expand...

Heresy is proposing some unorthodox change to an established system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established opinion of scholars of that belief such as canon.

Click to expand...

like say, acceptance of gay marriage as just as good as heterosexual marriage.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

...wooooow.


You know... some of the posts in here remind me of exactly why I don't get involved in these so called "civil discussions"


Like this wonderful little nugget of bullshit, for example...

Go here: http://faithcommunitynetwork.com/ Ask your questions. You've already spat in my face, figuratively. Why should I believe you even care what evidence convinced me?

Click to expand...

You've just got to love the hypocrisy, don't you? A man complaining about small mindedness, when he's already stated near the beginning of the discussion that he's got a problem with homosexuality.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone;246140][quote=@Li3n said:

I don't think being an unbeliever makes you heretical...

Click to expand...

Heresy is proposing some unorthodox change to an established system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established opinion of scholars of that belief such as canon.

Click to expand...

like say, acceptance of gay marriage as just as good as heterosexual marriage.[/QUOTE]

if you're thinking heresy in terms of social mores then right... but i'm pretty sure you're not preaching that the Bible or God says it's ok...

As in you're only a heretic if you're a Christian but not another religion (muslims and jews sharing the old testament etc. make that muddy, but you should get what i mean).

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

see, i firmly believe "God" says it's ok, and that the Bible isn't the final arbiter of "God" yet and that Christianity as a whole is just a superstructured framework to impose political will upon populations.

"Do as is written in this book or our God will smite you, even though he loves you."

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Tiq said:

Go here: http://faithcommunitynetwork.com/ Ask your questions. You've already spat in my face, figuratively. Why should I believe you even care what evidence convinced me?

Click to expand...

You've just got to love the hypocrisy, don't you? A man complaining about small mindedness, when he's already stated near the beginning of the discussion that he's got a problem with homosexuality.

Click to expand...

...

I don't see anybody here crusading, or acting in hatred toward homosexuals. Not even those who believe it's wrong. They believe it's unnatural, and are discussing why they think that. I don't see intolerance. I see disagreement.

I'm not going to mince words. I think both figiment and espy's opinions on the matter are dated. In a few decades, they will be seen with the same eyes that see heliocentricists now. But getting up in their faces for being 'intolerant' is both idiotic, and counterproductive.

I give you my full blessing if you want to tear into someone who actually hates homosexuals. That's intolerance. And like I said in a previous post, I've torn into those people myself. But you take a man who simply disagrees on the mechanics, reasons, or nature of homosexuality, a man who until today was at least tolerant, if unsettled by the idea. Take that man, and fly at him for being intolerant, and he soon will be.

And then you've taken one previously possibly-swayable-by-the-facts vote for Prop 8, and turn it into a 'damn-homer-sekshuls-killed-mah-dog' vote.

---------- Post added at 10:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------

Crone said:

see, i firmly believe \"God\" says it's ok, and that the Bible isn't the final arbiter of \"God\" yet and that Christianity as a whole is just a superstructured framework to impose political will upon populations.

\"Do as is written in this book or our God will smite you, even though he loves you.\"

Click to expand...

Crone, this might sound rediculous considering how angry at you I was yesterday, but you just hit the nail so hard on the head it isn't even funny.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Rob king, Friend of Unnatural Homosexuals everywhere; would like to know why everyone is on his case just because he Tolerates them, and he is quite shocked that people seem to act idiotically (that is, disagree with him anytime he calls some an idiot, states the act silly or stupidly) and is willing to lend his permission only to "good causes"

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Rob King said:

I'm not going to mince words. I think both figiment and espy's opinions on the matter are dated.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute... what view is that? That I think homosexuals should be allowed to get married? That's my view so I'm not sure what exactly you are referring too...

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Espy;246268][quote=Rob King said:

I'm not going to mince words. I think both figiment and espy's opinions on the matter are dated.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute... what view is that? That I think homosexuals should be allowed to get married? That's my view so I'm not sure what exactly you are referring too...[/QUOTE]

Aww, shit. Fingers moved faster than my brain. I was thinking about the whole "homosexuality = bad" thing, and also thinking that I wanted to date you ... and then it got all mashed up and ... sorry!

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Rob King;246307][quote=Espy;246268][quote=Rob King said:

I'm not going to mince words. I think both figiment and espy's opinions on the matter are dated.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute... what view is that? That I think homosexuals should be allowed to get married? That's my view so I'm not sure what exactly you are referring too...[/QUOTE]

Aww, shit. Fingers moved faster than my brain. I was thinking about the whole "homosexuality = bad" thing, and also thinking that I wanted to date you ... and then it got all mashed up and ... sorry![/QUOTE]

Dude. We went on that one date to the waterpark. It was awkward and you wouldn't buy me any cotton candy. It's not happening.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Espy;246309][quote=Rob King;246307][quote=Espy;246268][quote=Rob King said:

I'm not going to mince words. I think both figiment and espy's opinions on the matter are dated.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute... what view is that? That I think homosexuals should be allowed to get married? That's my view so I'm not sure what exactly you are referring too...[/quote]

Aww, shit. Fingers moved faster than my brain. I was thinking about the whole "homosexuality = bad" thing, and also thinking that I wanted to date you ... and then it got all mashed up and ... sorry![/quote]

Dude. We went on that one date to the waterpark. It was awkward and you wouldn't buy me any cotton candy. It's not happening.[/QUOTE]
Prude.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I'm just old fashioned.:humph:

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Thank you Espy, you have helped me ruin a new sweater. Now to get more coffee

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

Thank you Espy, you have helped me ruin a new sweater. Now to get more coffee

Click to expand...

I hear it's all the rage with the kids today.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

David said:

Without homosexuality, where will lesbian porn come from??

:smug:

Click to expand...

A straight american girl is never more than 8 tequila shots away from faux lesbianism.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Krisken;246319][quote=Espy;246309][quote=Rob King;246307][quote=Espy;246268][quote=Rob King said:

I'm not going to mince words. I think both figiment and espy's opinions on the matter are dated.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute... what view is that? That I think homosexuals should be allowed to get married? That's my view so I'm not sure what exactly you are referring too...[/quote]

Aww, shit. Fingers moved faster than my brain. I was thinking about the whole "homosexuality = bad" thing, and also thinking that I wanted to date you ... and then it got all mashed up and ... sorry![/quote]

Dude. We went on that one date to the waterpark. It was awkward and you wouldn't buy me any cotton candy. It's not happening.[/QUOTE]
Prude.[/QUOTE]

Prude? You obviously didn't see the bikini he was wearing.

And everybody knows cotton candy at a water park is just a recipe for disaster!

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Espy;246351][quote=Crone said:

Thank you Espy, you have helped me ruin a new sweater. Now to get more coffee

Click to expand...

I hear it's all the rage with the kids today.[/QUOTE]

*drinks*

crunchy.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

You... you ate hypnotoad...

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Better to eat a toad than submit to same lame exclusionary idea of who I can and cannot love based on their gender.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Tiq said:

Like this wonderful little nugget of bullshit, for example...

Go here: http://faithcommunitynetwork.com/ Ask your questions. You've already spat in my face, figuratively. Why should I believe you even care what evidence convinced me?

Click to expand...

You've just got to love the hypocrisy, don't you? A man complaining about small mindedness, when he's already stated near the beginning of the discussion that he's got a problem with homosexuality.

Click to expand...

I'm small minded simply because I hold a position that is different from yours? That's not a logical conclusion, but anyway...

I didn't complain about small mindedness, I complained about rudeness. I posted that I thought it was counterproductive to start a discussion with a strawman argument, and I provided a link to an article that showed that a church had been forced to allow a homosexual marriage occur on their property. For my comments, Crone pulled out a couple of "yo mamma" jokes. Have I been rude to anyone in this thread?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Hey NR, you got any room for a fellow beard brother?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

figmentPez said:

I didn't complain about small mindedness, I complained about rudeness. I posted that I thought it was counterproductive to start a discussion with a strawman argument, and I provided a link to an article that showed that a church had been forced to allow a homosexual marriage occur on their property. For my comments, Crone pulled out a couple of "yo mamma" jokes. Have I been rude to anyone in this thread?

Click to expand...

He's right. He's been a very polite small minded person. Wait, believing that certain populations don't deserve the same structured legal rights as other groups isn't small minded, it's a different position.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

If you've got beer, sausages or birch twigs, you're in.

And for the ladies and gay men:

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

North_Ranger said:

If you've got beer, sausages or birch twigs, you're in.

And for the ladies and gay men:

Click to expand...

:wocatagon:

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

Better to eat a toad than submit to same lame exclusionary idea of who I can and cannot love based on their gender.

Click to expand...

Damn straight. We know you'd want a piece of this even if I were male.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Okay, guys and gay women next:



That's closest to SFW I could get...

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Why do the folks who like the ladies get a hotty while the folks who like the gents get a saggy dude with a shrub?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Cuz that's just how North Ranger rolls...

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

In the former forum/url I tryed to provide quality male nudity but was never apreciated u.u

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

AmorousEyes said:

-Edit-
Crap, I didn't even wanna post in this thread. /phail

Click to expand...

if it's any revelation, neither did I. I debated long and hard over replying in any form to Rob King, but then my anger got the better of my impulse control. I actually don't enjoy shit stirring like this, though it's very second nature.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Fine, fine!

I'll see if I can find you a better-looking guy.

Jeeze, you do your best but it's never enough. I oughta grumble grumble grumble...

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

if it's any revelation, neither did I.

Click to expand...

Didn't you start the thread? Kind of hard to avoid posting in it then yeah?

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern said:

In the former forum/url I tryed to provide quality male nudity but was never apreciated u.u

Click to expand...

Eh, to be honest I like looking at naked ladies better. They're just prettier. And no I haven't had eight tequila shots.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Crone said:

He's right. He's been a very polite small minded person. Wait, believing that certain populations don't deserve the same structured legal rights as other groups isn't small minded, it's a different position.

Click to expand...

You know, it's interesting. I've never actually been asked in this thread if I hold an opinion on legalizing gay marriage, let alone what that opinion is. You all have just assumed that I object to it simply because of my religious beliefs.

I'm actually undecided on the issue of legalizing gay marriage, but you all just gave in to your prejudices and assumed what you didn't know to be true. I'm finished with this thread.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Espy;246746][quote=Crone said:

if it's any revelation, neither did I.

Click to expand...

Didn't you start the thread? Kind of hard to avoid posting in it then yeah?[/QUOTE]

read the rest of the post you quoted... fucksake

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

figmentPez;246748][quote=Crone said:

He's right. He's been a very polite small minded person. Wait, believing that certain populations don't deserve the same structured legal rights as other groups isn't small minded, it's a different position.

Click to expand...

You know, it's interesting. I've never actually been asked in this thread if I hold an opinion on gay marriage, let alone what that opinion is. You all have just assumed that I object to it simply because of my religious beliefs.

I'm actually undecided on the issue of legalizing gay marriage, but you all just gave in to your prejudices and assumed what you didn't know to be true. I'm finished with this thread.[/QUOTE]

And I'm finished with your mom. God she was gooood. Thank you

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)


I think even Shego might approve...

NSFW Two young guys and a middle-aged guy tackle out...

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

I got some sausages, let's cook them up and see what happens next. "sits down, removes pants"

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

North_Ranger said:

I think even Shego might approve...

[COLOR=\"DarkRed\"]NSFW[/COLOR] Two young guys and a middle-aged guy tackle out...

Click to expand...

ScytheRexx said:

I got some sausages, let's cook them up and see what happens next. \"sits down, removes pants\"

Click to expand...

the order of this post is disturbing.

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

That's the spirit, Rexx!

Traditional Marriage (was Books discussion)

Green_Lantern;246760][quote=North_Ranger said:

I think even Shego might approve...

[COLOR=\"DarkRed\"]NSFW[/COLOR] Two young guys and a middle-aged guy tackle out...

Click to expand...

ScytheRexx said:

I got some sausages, let's cook them up and see what happens next. \"sits down, removes pants\"

Click to expand...

the order of this post is disturbing.[/QUOTE]

For the mother fucking WIN

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Continueing derail:

are those porn stars?

http://koti.mbnet.fi/achiaro/ohjeita/saunassa.jpg

also: Sauna Gay Kiss -

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Green_Lantern said:

are those porn stars?

http://koti.mbnet.fi/achiaro/ohjeita/saunassa.jpg

Click to expand...

Umm... No, I don't think so.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

North_Ranger;246767][quote=Green_Lantern said:

are those porn stars?

http://koti.mbnet.fi/achiaro/ohjeita/saunassa.jpg

Click to expand...

Umm... No, I don't think so.[/QUOTE]

oh...

well, the guy looked familiar

>.>

<.<

>.<

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Crone;246743][quote=AmorousEyes said:

-Edit-
Crap, I didn't even wanna post in this thread. /phail

Click to expand...

if it's any revelation, neither did I. I debated long and hard over replying in any form to Rob King, but then my anger got the better of my impulse control. I actually don't enjoy shit stirring like this, though it's very second nature.[/QUOTE]


You gotta be kiddin'.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

If you have something to say, say it, or PM the person. This passive-aggressive tagging shit is totally childish.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Am I glad I only got here when the flames had died down and the sauna was up and running! Phew!

Make way for the Belgian! Good beer, coming through!

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Say, send the fine-looking lady with the beer pitcher my way.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Sure thing. I'm keeping her bikini, though. Hope you don't mind.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Bubble181 said:

Sure thing. I'm keeping her bikini, though. Hope you don't mind.

Click to expand...

Hey, you get the bikini, I get the girl. It's a win-win!

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Heed my warning! If this girl continues beer in large amounts, she eventually will look like this:



And if you ask politely, I can provide you the necessary battery acid to wash out your eyes... I guess it'll come handy after seeing this pic.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

AAAAUUUGGGHHHH!!! AAAAUUUUUUGGGHHHH!!! MAH EYES! THEY BURN! OH THE HUMANITY!!

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Is that real? If so, it's unfortunate. Yeeks.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Looks real to me. But actually, I'm not sure... Though the image is clearly in front of my eyes, my eyes just refuse to see it. Must be some kind of self-preservation mechanics in my brain...

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

ooooooooooooooooooook, cancelling tomorrow's plan to go to restaurant too

i fucking hate you guys

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Counter-measures! Must... apply... counter-measures...





Feeling... better now.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

I'd tap that...

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Andi owes me a pair of eyes.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

bhamv3 said:

Andi owes me a pair of eyes.

Click to expand...

Wait, what? Aren't those protective gloves you're wearing?

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Gloves?

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

SeraRelm said:

Gloves?

Click to expand...

Oops, silly me, of course I meant bracers... ur... pants... wuteva...

:moon:

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Andi;247226][quote=SeraRelm said:

Gloves?

Click to expand...

Oops, silly me, of course I meant bracers... ur... pants... wuteva...

:moon:[/QUOTE]

Setting aside the fact that I do, in fact, wear bracers when I go swimming, your picture managed to burn right through my goggles.

It burned... through my goggles... while in a swimming pool.

Full of water.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

North_Ranger said:

Counter-measures! Must... apply... counter-measures...

Feeling... better now.

Click to expand...

Now the healing may begin...

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Andi said:

I'd tap that...

Click to expand...

But when?

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Even google ads are getting into it.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Andi, I thought mom said you two broke up.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Bubble181 said:

Am I glad I only got here when the flames had died down and the sauna was up and running! Phew!

Make way for the Belgian! Good beer, coming through!

Click to expand...

Wherever this is, I wish to move there immediately.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

I second that notion!

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Yeah, Andi, I'm afraid we're going to have to revoke your picture posting privileges.
I'd post some more, but looking for "sexy sauna" on google sort of led me into NSFW territory.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Dude, that's what sauna is all about.

'cept when it's a family sauna. But otherwise, I LURVE unisex saunas

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Well, yes, absoliutely, but I can't start posting semi-porn here, can I? :-P
Some mods might take offense.

Soooo....Steam baths!





I wouldn't classify this as NSFW, but some might...

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

What's with the towels?

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Trying to keep it SFW for the 'mericuns, buddy.
Also, do my topless avatar pictures count? :-P

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

No, I was being serious. I've never worn a towel to the sauna.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Lucky Finn. They're there in Belgian sauna's, too, mostly, unless it's private.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Even in male-only saunas? Like at spa hotels and public swimming halls?

Yikes.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Yes. Well, towels, or bathing suits, or whatever. Towels are usually more for lying on, so that the bench doesn't get soaked with everybody's sweat.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Prudes

Admittedly, Finnish sauna tradition is more about sitting and talking than lying.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

I need to come visit Finland. Some day, some day....

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Bubble181 said:

I need to come visit Finland. Some day, some day....

Click to expand...

I've never even been in a sauna. I'd like to try one. Bet it's relaxing.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Eh. Yes. Though you aren't really supposed ot stay in there too long.
So, something like 15 minutes sauna, cold shower, 15 minutes steam bath, cold shower, 15 minutes solarium, cold shower, 15 minutes jacuzzi, cold shower, 15 minutes sauna, cold shower, than drop dead and drink some nice cocktails :-P

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Cajungal;247734][quote=Bubble181 said:

I need to come visit Finland. Some day, some day....

Click to expand...

I've never even been in a sauna. I'd like to try one. Bet it's relaxing.[/QUOTE]

It is, very much so.

It's especially nice if you have the chance to do the following: run from a hot sauna into snow and/or a hole cut in the ice for a quick dip. Just roll/swim around for a minute or so, then get back inside. You'll tingle all over, and the tension just melts away.

But just sitting in the sauna, and taking cold showers in-between is also nice =)

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Man I need to do something like that. I hold all my tension in my back and shoulders, and this past year it's been getting worse. I've been thinking about hitting a sauna to relax or getting a massage.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Sauna, definitely then.

There's two schools of thought whether you should sauna wet or dry. Personally I prefer wet, since I love cooling off by pouring a ladleful of cool water on myself while in a sauna. It cools, it relaxes, and it helps you if you're a first-timer in a sauna.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

How often do you do it?

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

I used to do it weekly. Unfortunately, for a while now I've had some... stuff in the sauna in my apartment, and haven't been able to. But I enjoy it when I can.

Personally I wouldn't recommend it daily, more like weekly or maybe 1-2 times a month, however you prefer.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

North_Ranger said:

the sauna in my apartment

Click to expand...

:aaahhh:

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

I am so finding a sauna this semester. I'm gonna find the HELL out of a sauna... somewhere in this armpit of a city.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Find anyone of Finnish descent; we can track a proper sauna within a 200-mile radius.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

CajunGal doesn't need a sauna. She lives in one.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

I don't mind extreme heat and humidity when I get to choose it.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Cajungal said:

I don't mind extreme heat and humidity when I get to choose it.

Click to expand...

You don't mind getting hot and wet? I'm sure your man is pleased :-P

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Bubble181;247893][quote=Cajungal said:

I don't mind extreme heat and humidity when I get to choose it.

Click to expand...

You don't mind getting hot and wet? I'm sure your man is pleased :-P[/QUOTE]

There. It is a place that he went.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Well, first I was going to say something about her always being in heat and wet, but I decided staying slightly classier. And now I failed that Will Check on the second round. Darn.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Don't know about you other coonasses, but the weather on the Northshore has been pretty nice! Warm, but cool breezes!

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Coonawhat?

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

North_Ranger said:

Coonawhat?

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coonass

Ah shit. Apparently it's also an ethnic slur. I am sorry to those I may have offended as that was not my intention

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

I never knew it was a slur. I've always thought it was just accepted slang.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

... It's definitely an ethnic slur.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

I approve this thread. There's so much going on.

I just can't keep it on my taskbar while at work. It reads 'NAKED PEOPLE IN S...'

Finland here I come.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

SeraRelm said:

... It's definitely an ethnic slur.

Taking it back

Click to expand...

Well, coon and coonass are different terms.

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Frankie;248196][quote=SeraRelm said:

... It's definitely an ethnic slur.

Taking it back

Click to expand...

Well, coon and coonass are different terms.[/QUOTE]

And? What does that have to do with anything?

NAKED PEOPLE IN SAUNAS! Was About Traditional Marriage

Rob King;247899][quote=Bubble181;247893][quote=Cajungal said:

I don't mind extreme heat and humidity when I get to choose it.

Click to expand...

You don't mind getting hot and wet? I'm sure your man is pleased :-P[/QUOTE]

There. It is a place that he went.[/QUOTE]

THAT'S RIGHT, YOU PEOPLE HEARD ME!


Also, that term doesn't bother me.

It may be a slur, but everyone here uses it to refer to each other. Unlike "coon" it doesn't really seem to offend the recipient.

Here being Lafayette Parish in LA.

Yeah, no one cares. Most Cajuns approach it in a light-hearted way. We know we're a comical people.

And lots of urban folks call each other nigga, it's still hilarious Vyt pulled a Randal.

SeraRelm said:

And lots of urban folks call each other nigga, it's still hilarious Vyt pulled a Randal.

Click to expand...

The difference is that it doesn't seem like anyone here gets offended when an outside person uses it.

fade;248253][quote=SeraRelm said:

And lots of urban folks call each other nigga, it's still hilarious Vyt pulled a Randal.

Click to expand...

The difference is that it doesn't seem like anyone here gets offended when an outside person uses it.[/QUOTE].

SeraRelm said:

And lots of urban folks call each other nigga, it's still hilarious Vyt pulled a Randal.

Click to expand...

What??? I'm takin' it back!

*I am so embarrassed*:waah: