U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2011, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,518,688 times
Reputation: 4104

Advertisements

I love that the new Gay marriage law in New York is driving fundies mad, because they go off on tirades about traditional marriage and sexual relations. Let us think about some of the traditional sexual relations from the last 2000 years of Christianity...

No legal age of consent, so once most women hit puberty were waiting for a hubby up until recently.

Women were required to be subservient to men because they were less then men, including martial rape being just fine. Had to love women couldn't even speak in church either (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

If a woman is raped, the rapist is required to marry her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), which is still a view point espoused today.

Likely execution for having sex while a woman is menstruating, even if she is raped (Leviticus 20:18).

The Catholic Church was the largest single operator of brothels in history (ignoring Lev 21:9), and seems to be the largest employer of pedophiles.

Same fundies seem to be very silent that kids can still get married as young as 13 in the US.

There is a law against incest I guess, stopped clock are right sometimes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2011, 02:35 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,505,303 times
Reputation: 1267
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
I love that the new Gay marriage law in New York is driving fundies mad, because they go off on tirades about traditional marriage and sexual relations. Let us think about some of the traditional sexual relations from the last 2000 years of Christianity...

No legal age of consent, so once most women hit puberty were waiting for a hubby up until recently.

Women were required to be subservient to men because they were less then men, including martial rape being just fine. Had to love women couldn't even speak in church either (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).
That's a step up from other religions. Islam teaches that men can beat their wives.
Quote:
If a woman is raped, the rapist is required to marry her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), which is still a view point espoused today.
Where does it mention rape?
Quote:
Likely execution for having sex while a woman is menstruating, even if she is raped (Leviticus 20:18).
It's exile. Not exocution. But it does teach the importance of blood.
Quote:
The Catholic Church was the largest single operator of brothels in history (ignoring Lev 21:9), and seems to be the largest employer of pedophiles.
I don't care what the catholic church has done in the past--they are an apostate religion and don't represent Christianity.
Quote:
Same fundies seem to be very silent that kids can still get married as young as 13 in the US.
OK?
Quote:
There is a law against incest I guess, stopped clock are right sometimes.
ok?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,518,688 times
Reputation: 4104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
That's a step up from other religions. Islam teaches that men can beat their wives.
Fundies also beat their wives today, many linked instances in this study. Plus the long histories of domestic abuse without condemnation from the church up through the 1950's.

Just because one religion doesn't actively condemn it, doesn't allow people to do whatever the hell they want to others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Where does it mention rape?
You seriously don't know the Bible? How can you claim to be religious and don't know what it says?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
It's exile. Not exocution. But it does teach the importance of blood.
Debatable, it has often been interpreted as death by more extreme crowds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I don't care what the catholic church has done in the past--they are an apostate religion and don't represent Christianity.
Well, they are Christian. If you want to group everyone who is okay with Gay Marriage as a pedophile activist, well...don't overgeneralize unless you want to be assigned in the same fashion.

You do know what the bible says about Apostasy? You are required to kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town (Deut 13:12-15). Please look that one up yourself if you need a Bible refresher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 06:12 PM
 
Location: John & Ken-ville
13,692 posts, read 15,175,135 times
Reputation: 9493
I really don't give a frack. I don't follow any organized religion.

People are not required to be married in a church for it to be considered marriage.

There was nothing ever wrong with "civil unions" but the gays had to push their agenda.

Civil unions and justice of the peace are as valid as being married in a church.

Now go open up a new can of worms with the religious foundation of this country and the gays are really going to have a fight on their hands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 06:25 PM
 
22 posts, read 56,903 times
Reputation: 16
I always thought Civil Unions sounded like a good idea to appease both communities. Then I read the Wikipedia article and the criticisms about it. I guess the one criticism that's particular interesting was the whole "separate but equal" thing, and basically the segregation of couples. I guess there is no real easy way to solve this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 06:32 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 10,782,888 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talentfull View Post
I always thought Civil Unions sounded like a good idea to appease both communities. Then I read the Wikipedia article and the criticisms about it. I guess the one criticism that's particular interesting was the whole "separate but equal" thing, and basically the segregation of couples. I guess there is no real easy way to solve this issue.
Civil unions are fine. I think it would be a great way to go. Call the legal entity that confers 1400 civil rights to legally joined couples civil unions, and call what goes on in churches marriages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 06:36 PM
 
Location: Rational World Park
4,999 posts, read 3,769,674 times
Reputation: 2372
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Civil unions are fine. I think it would be a great way to go. Call the legal entity the confers 1400 civil rights to legally joined couples civil unions, and call what goes on in churches marriages.
Why not just call them all marriages if it makes no difference?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 06:47 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 10,782,888 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenyo View Post
Why not just call them all marriages if it makes no difference?
I don't care what it's called: civil unions, civil marriages, civil cohabitations, civil shacking ups, dlakjflakjsdfs. As long as the legal entity is called by one name for everybody and everybody has equal access to it, I could care less what we term it.

The easiest way would be to leave it as the term "marriage" - it wouldn't require any rewording of laws. However, as an atheist, it does bug me slightly that we've taken a term so many people view as religious and inserted it into our civil, secular law (not to mention how it confuses people who are ignorant of how our law and Constitution work), so it might be best in the long term to call it something perceived as more neutral like a "civil union."

Last edited by hammertime33; 06-27-2011 at 06:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
29,012 posts, read 19,116,564 times
Reputation: 7775
Default Fail!

Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
Fundies also beat their wives today, many linked instances in this study. Plus the long histories of domestic abuse without condemnation from the church up through the 1950's.

Just because one religion doesn't actively condemn it, doesn't allow people to do whatever the hell they want to others.



You seriously don't know the Bible? How can you claim to be religious and don't know what it says?



Debatable, it has often been interpreted as death by more extreme crowds.



Well, they are Christian. If you want to group everyone who is okay with Gay Marriage as a pedophile activist, well...don't overgeneralize unless you want to be assigned in the same fashion.

You do know what the bible says about Apostasy? You are required to kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town (Deut 13:12-15). Please look that one up yourself if you need a Bible refresher.




The "study" is flawed because it incorrectly defines a Christian fundamentalist.

From the "study"...

"Christian fundamentalism is a system of beliefs and practices rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible, the experience of being “born-again,” and the belief that adherence to strict behavioral and social norms through a Christian fellowship are precursors to eternal life"

If the "study" cannot correctly identify fundamentalist's beliefs, how can they identify fundamentalists?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Rational World Park
4,999 posts, read 3,769,674 times
Reputation: 2372
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
I don't care what it's called: civil unions, civil marriages, civil cohabitations, civil shacking ups, dlakjflakjsdfs. As long as the legal entity is called by one name for everybody and everybody has equal access to it, I could care less what we term it.

The easiest way would be to leave it as the term "marriage" - it wouldn't require any rewording of laws. However, as an atheist, it does bug me slightly that we've taken a term so many people view as religious and inserted it into our civil, secular law (not to mention how it confuses people who are ignorant of how our law and Constitution work), so it might be best in the long term to call it something perceived as more neutral like a "civil union."
Shocked that you're an atheist

Anyway, some members of the gay community happen to be religious (for what reason I don't know) and would like to be married.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top