Gay Marriage

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Its not bigot Chritians wanting to kick gays in the balls.

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible.

blatenly incorrect!

chinese have had marriage for thousands of years, probably before the bible was writen.

actually your the one who is wrong.....if.....
if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first 2 people put on the earth......
then it was a biblical first......because God made Eve for Adam..thus marriage.

btw--this is just a clarification of how the people whop oppose this issue think!

Tou need to know these things in order to debate and discuss with these people( as in those who would deny the right of marriage to the gay community) in a manner which they understand.

OK, so then it appeared in the Torah some ~2k years prior to the Bible. <--- nice try but you just self owned yourself!!
EDIT: btw, I'm just adding to your argument.

You need not explain to a Jew what the Torah is.
But I do like it when people like you conduct self-ownage!!

To be exact the Torah...is part of the bible.....go figure..
The Torah is the most holy of the sacred writings in Judaism.[4] It is the first of three sections in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), the founding religious document of Judaism,[5] and is divided into five books, whose names in English are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, in reference to their themes (Their Hebrew names, Bereishis, ??????, Shemos ????, Vayikro ?????, Bamidbor ?????, and Devorim ?????, are derived from the wording of their initial verses). The Torah contains a variety of literary genres, including allegories, historical narrative, poetry, genealogy, and the exposition of various types of law. According to rabbinic tradition, the Torah contains the 613 mitzvos (?????,

it pisses you off that I completely agreed with you?



no lesson needed, tyvm. was just pointing out that marriage certainly existed before the Christian text...and in the very same book the Christians use. Which is funny.

Nobody is pissed off.....
First of all you did not say Christian text...
Second of all you did NOT know that the Torah was part of the bible.
Anyway you explain yourself you ended up looking like an idiot and very stoopid.

Obviously I DID know that the Torah was part of the Bible, which is exactly why I made that point.

You honestly thought I didn't know that? I find it amazing how horribly off-base your interpretation of my post lead to your accusation of me making a fool out of myself. Really, think about it.

OK, I can see how a quick reading of my original statement would lead to that misunderstanding, but I honestly didn't want to get into detail in that post, as I was merely agreeing with you by adding another level onto the fundy Christians claiming the Bible as the first appearance of the concept--Adam and Eve--when it was well before (as we all know, those early books are the Torah) the Bible existed.

Honestly...it is such a common, well-known concept that I didn't think it bore repeating. It amazes me that you so retardedly miss my point, inflate your e-peen needlessly by claiming "OMG HAHA YOU KNOW NOTHING YOU DUMB GENTILE FOOL!!! HAHA."

I mean, seriously...

Does it not make you look more foolish by trying to puff yourself up when you put interpretation into my words that was never there--over a ridiculously well-known fact that most people of at least a high school education realize?

well known by who? surely not you.....
Even your post that you were owned in made no mention of the ZTorah being the first 5 books of the Bible...sadly you fail!!

How was I puffing myself up? I was just pointing out how rediculous and foolish you made yourself look.

I can`t help if you children feel so threatened by a Jew(which I am and have ben for longer than you have been on this earth) that you would resort to trying to reexplain yourself.....

Tlak about dumb gentle fools......I might have added the word pathetic to describe you...but thats just me!!

Shalom!!

W
T
F?

seriously, learn some textual analysis. It's a sad sad day when one must react to their own terrible misunderstanding by claiming "ownage!!!oMGZZZ"

I understand why you hang out in P&N, you have comprehension issues. "I didn't explicitly say the Torah was the first 5 books OMG!!! I MUST NOT KNOW THAT IZ TRUEEE!!"

seriously. think about it for a second. I don't even have to say it for the point to make sense.

Imagine I didn't know such to be the case (clearly I did), is to so kewl to project your Hebrew knowledge in such an antagonistic way? does it change anything about the post?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The issue, as I tried to show Bober, is not parallel because we can and do limit marriage to girls we deem to have become women. To discriminate on the basis of age is not a violation of protected rights. To discriminate on the basis of number of wives is not a violation of protected rights. To discriminate against marriage based on sexual orientation, race, religion, national origin etc IS a violation of protected rights.

Then ask yourself why is polygamist not a protected class? Do you think polygamy is a choice or are they born with a gene that makes them desire more than one spouse? What if it was a bisexual polygamist who wanted a husband and a wife? Are you going to deny them their happiness?

That's what I thought, bigot.

Stop with the pedantic idiocy.

Looking in the mirror and hating yourself again, eh?

seriously, dude. re-read that question you posted. It is completely idiotic.

Don't project your tunnel vision on me, son. If you don't see the parallel it's not my fault.

son?

I eat pieces of stool bigger than you for breakfast.

You eat stool for breakfast? :Q

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Don't call it marriage then, but call it state unions or civil unions that both hetero and homosexuals can engage in, with all the benefits afforded to both camps. Marriage can then be left to the denomination the couple belongs to. If the local religious venue doesn't sanction the union, that's their decision, but it doesn't affect the benefits/status afforded by the civil union.

This is the easiest solution out there. That way, all people are equal under the law. It makes no sense that a gay partner cannot legally participate in their partner's lives, just because of an anachronistic tradition being upheld by bigots and fundamentalists.

I have always been in favor of this, take marriage out of govt, call them all unions for everyone and let whatever religious sect hold the term marriage....but people who are vehemently pro homosexual unions don't want anything but marriage and I wouldn't be surprised if it was partly to rub it in the face of the religions that condemn their actions....the fact is even if they get what they want they won't change anyone's mind on anything.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Actually you would be the one with bias as you're talking out your ass about something you have no personal knowledge of. He can tell us from personal experience what having two gay parents would mean and how it affected his life. You, from your abstractness, have only your bias to apply.

Please moonie...he clearly has a vested interest, whose to say he wasn't tormented as a child by his peers and now is looking for vindication through the courts or at least acknowledgement that his parents should be accepted....

What I said above stands...the courts can rule however they want, the reality is that it won't change anything....those that accept it now will and those that don't won't....and decades from now it will be the same, there will always be those who either agree or disagree.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The issue, as I tried to show Bober, is not parallel because we can and do limit marriage to girls we deem to have become women. To discriminate on the basis of age is not a violation of protected rights. To discriminate on the basis of number of wives is not a violation of protected rights. To discriminate against marriage based on sexual orientation, race, religion, national origin etc IS a violation of protected rights.

Then ask yourself why is polygamist not a protected class? Do you think polygamy is a choice or are they born with a gene that makes them desire more than one spouse? What if it was a bisexual polygamist who wanted a husband and a wife? Are you going to deny them their happiness?

That's what I thought, bigot.

Stop with the pedantic idiocy.

Looking in the mirror and hating yourself again, eh?

seriously, dude. re-read that question you posted. It is completely idiotic.

Don't project your tunnel vision on me, son. If you don't see the parallel it's not my fault.

son?

I eat pieces of stool bigger than you for breakfast.

You eat stool for breakfast? :Q

/Shooter McGavin

 

[Vic]

"I hate that Bob Barker."