Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 11-29-2011, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Metro DC area
4,520 posts, read 4,210,521 times
Reputation: 1289

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV View Post
First, I'd like to know from which version of the Bible you got your quote. Because neither version I have reads that way at all. (no mention of "practicing homosexuality".) Or were you unaware that the Bible has been translated and re-translated from ancient languages many times throughout it's history? You are aware that it wasn't written in English, right?
What the other poster was stating is that it wasn't but a hundred years ago that scientists realized there is an actual difference between "homosexual acts" (which your Bible is actually referring to) and homosexuality itself. Even some heterosexuals are capable of "homosexual acts" whereas, while capable of "heterosexual acts", the homosexual is really only comfortable with loving someone of his/her own gender.

Instead of asking me about my translation, how about you just provide yours to disprove my quoted Scripture? I'm well aware that the Bible wasn't written in English. Your translation, please?

How did scientists "realize" this? Did they build a time machine to go back to the future? Difference between homosexual acts and homosexuality? Really....can you expound? Scholarly sources would be great, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2011, 09:38 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,273,675 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
It didn't take 200 years. I would venture to guess that blacks didn't even want to marry whites up until the time of our emancipation. Except perhaps for the slavemaster/slave fetish folks.
Yes it did. It was still illegal in some states in the US back in the 60's (ended in 1967 to be exact) where they had in their laws that prevented interracial marriages (mostly targeting blacks).

I don't know about you, but slave ownership has been around since the founding of our country and were freed with the 14th Amendment. That is over 200 years till it was finally abolished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Metro DC area
4,520 posts, read 4,210,521 times
Reputation: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
Yes, Choclot seems to reading what is not there.

anti-same sex zealots = keep marriage religious

so my solution would do so. marriage would still be religious, but to be legal, all couples must have a civil union CONTRACT done and signed.
You don't see the hypocrisy in your argument. I can't help you with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 09:41 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,273,675 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
You don't see the hypocrisy in your argument. I can't help you with that.
there is no hypocrisy.

you continue to ignore what we are saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Metro DC area
4,520 posts, read 4,210,521 times
Reputation: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
Yes it did. It was still illegal in some states in the US back in the 60's (ended in 1967 to be exact) where they had in their laws that prevented interracial marriages (mostly targeting blacks).

I don't know about you, but slave ownership has been around since the founding of our country and were freed with the 14th Amendment. That is over 200 years till it was finally abolished.
Saying it took 200 years is like saying slaves wanted to marry their owners but were prevented. So, you can't argue that point. You can only argue from the point when society became aware of this desire to marry different races.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Metro DC area
4,520 posts, read 4,210,521 times
Reputation: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
there is no hypocrisy.

you continue to ignore what we are saying.
The irony of your post is not lost on me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
3,849 posts, read 3,753,645 times
Reputation: 1706
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV View Post
In what way does same sex marriage change "the core foundation" of marriage? Unless one thinks marriage is only about having children, the "core foundation" remains the same - a relationship between the spouses that encourages cooperation in life decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
Wow; you say it doesn't change the core, yet you change it in your very post.
Funny you think that's a 'change' but don't bother to explain what it's a change from. I know that when I got married over 40 years ago, that was the core foundation of my marriage. So what are you saying I should have considered the "core foundation" of my marriage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 09:47 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,273,675 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
Saying it took 200 years is like saying slaves wanted to marry their owners but were prevented.
You obviously do not know your US history:

slaves in America were not considered citizens. They could not even MARRY their own people. A male black slave could not even marry a female black slave. They were often treated as breeding stock to make sure their slave owners would have new slaves to exploit. YES, they were prevented because of the LAW. They were prevented from marrying each other.

It took the passing of the 14th Amendment to finally have them recognized AS citizens. And as citizens, they could finally marry one another.

But, we still had laws in our books up until 1967 that prevented interracial marriages (and it was mostly targeted at Blacks). Many states still had bans against interracial marriages.

Even Kansas, home state of Barack Obama's mother and grandparents, banned interracial marriage, so her marriage to Barack Sr would have been illegal if she had returned to Kansas in 1961.

Quote:
So, you can't argue that point. You can only argue from the point when society became aware of this desire to marry different races.
The desire has always been there. Many immigrants who came to America were not allowed to marry outside their race because of laws in place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 09:48 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,273,675 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
The irony of your post is not lost on me.

the only hypocrisy shown in this thread have been posted by the anti-same sex marriage zealots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Metro DC area
4,520 posts, read 4,210,521 times
Reputation: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
You obviously do not know your US history:

slaves in America were not considered citizens. They could not even MARRY their own people. A male black slave could not even marry a female black slave. They were often treated as breeding stock to make sure their slave owners would have new slaves to exploit. YES, they were prevented because of the LAW. They were prevented from marrying each other.

It took the passing of the 14th Amendment to finally have them recognized AS citizens. And as citizens, they could finally marry one another.

But, we still had laws in our books up until 1967 that prevented interracial marriages (and it was mostly targeted at Blacks). Many states still had bans against interracial marriages.

Even Kansas, home state of Barack Obama's mother and grandparents, banned interracial marriage, so her marriage to Barack Sr would have been illegal if she had returned to Kansas in 1961.



The desire has always been there. Many immigrants who came to America were not allowed to marry outside their race because of laws in place.
Slaves did marry. In some instances it was encouraged by their owners because it was believed it would discourage them from running away. Citizenship is another topic altogether and is irrelevant to this discussion.

To say that the desire was always there is mighty presumptuous. Furthermore, it can not be proven, so I won't continue along this hypothetical path.

You, and many others, have still failed to show how any of this disproves my position that marriage is a covenant between man/woman. I give up asking for proof. I know now that I won't get it.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:48 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top