Gay marriage legalised in the whole US by the supreme court

Angilion · 8 Jul 2015 at 04:21

Tosno said:
I have no idea what you are talking about being physically combined into hybrids.

You talked about heterosexual couples becoming one flesh. Which would require being physically combined into a hybrid entity.

If you want to use words as religious euphemisms with different meanings, that's not my problem.

Tefal · 8 Jul 2015 at 06:30

Angilion said:
You talked about heterosexual couples becoming one flesh. Which would require being physically combined into a hybrid entity.

If you want to use words as religious euphemisms with different meanings, that's not my problem.

or it could be referecne to eve being made from adams rib

Angilion · 8 Jul 2015 at 07:01

Tefal said:
or it could be referecne to eve being made from adams rib

That wouldn't make any sense, as it was being applied specifically and solely to married heterosexual couples and not to all people.

Not that it makes any sense anyway. Since the whole thing is a story about magic, there's no requirement for it to make sense or be consistent with reality or even itself.

Tefal · 8 Jul 2015 at 07:35

Angilion said:
That wouldn't make any sense, as it was being applied specifically and solely to married heterosexual couples and not to all people.

Not that it makes any sense anyway. Since the whole thing is a story about magic, there's no requirement for it to make sense or be consistent with reality or even itself.

hehe it depends also on which translation you read as not all use the word flesh.

simply two will become one.

koolpc · 8 Jul 2015 at 09:15

RoboCod said:
Yes, a completely outdated and, by majority vote, wrong opinion.

Majority vote in an atheist forum :rolleyes:

Schlong&Stable · 8 Jul 2015 at 10:34

RoboCod said:
Yes, a completely outdated and, by majority vote, wrong opinion.

You can always spot the most intellectually vapid of liberals by their use of phrases such as 'an outdated view' or 'wrong side of history'.

Gay rights are the product of lobbyists and special interest groups fighting a better PR war than their opponents, not some great social awakening. Their victory today can become defeat tomorrow, especially in the face of worsening economic or political conditions.

There is no such thing as an 'outdated' view, there is just a social (un)concious which is driven by whoever has the most influence on the day.

thep02 · 8 Jul 2015 at 10:42

Tefal said:
hehe it depends also on which translation you read as not all use the word flesh.

simply two will become one.

Aren't there 2 creation myths in the Bible anyway?

Burnsy2023 · 8 Jul 2015 at 10:49

Thompson_NCL said:
You can always spot the most intellectually vapid of liberals by their use of phrases such as 'an outdated view' or 'wrong side of history'.

Gay rights are the product of lobbyists and special interest groups fighting a better PR war than their opponents, not some great social awakening. Their victory today can become defeat tomorrow, especially in the face of worsening economic or political conditions.

There is no such thing as an 'outdated' view, there is just a social (un)concious which is driven by whoever has the most influence on the day.

Would you say the same about the civil rights movement and the abolition of slavery?

thep02 · 8 Jul 2015 at 10:59

Burnsy2023 said:
Would you say the same about the civil rights movement and the abolition of slavery?

Being honest if he had been around then and in that country I'm sure he would have said the same.

Schlong&Stable · 8 Jul 2015 at 11:00

Burnsy2023 said:
Would you say the same about the civil rights movement and the abolition of slavery?

Yes, absolutely.

If slavery ever makes a return, you can guarantee it will not be because everyone woke up one morning and decided that slavery was actually okay. It will be the product of changing economic, social and political conditions.

RoboCod · 8 Jul 2015 at 12:15

koolpc said:
Majority vote in an atheist forum

Ding Ding. A majority vote by society, get out of your little online world.

I'm sorry but your medieval view is now akin to not giving black people the same rights as whites. Take heed when bringing up children, they'll be persecuted for having old fashioned silly views.

RoboCod · 8 Jul 2015 at 12:16

Burnsy2023 said:
Would you say the same about the civil rights movement and the abolition of slavery?

Yes he probably would because it's quite clear he is a racist and elitist.

Thompson_NCL said:
You can always spot the most intellectually vapid of liberals by their use of phrases such as 'an outdated view' or 'wrong side of history'.

Gay rights are the product of lobbyists and special interest groups fighting a better PR war than their opponents, not some great social awakening. Their victory today can become defeat tomorrow, especially in the face of worsening economic or political conditions.

There is no such thing as an 'outdated' view, there is just a social (un)concious which is driven by whoever has the most influence on the day.

LOL yes, you are intellectually enlightened. Give me a break, your views verge on the neanderthal.

In this thread... Equal rights for normal everyday folk is actually too liberal, and too liberal is therefore stupid and wrong.

Schlong&Stable · 8 Jul 2015 at 12:33

RoboCod said:
Yes he probably would because it's quite clear he is a racist and elitist.

And you base this upon...?

LOL yes, you are intellectually enlightened. Give me a break, your views verge on the neanderthal.

Which views? I think you'll find that my social views are reasonably liberal by the standards of much of the world.

In this thread... Equal rights for normal everyday folk is actually too liberal, and too liberal is therefore stupid and wrong.

Gay marriage and adoption has nothing to do with equal rights, it has to do with the expansion of rights.

RoboCod · 8 Jul 2015 at 12:39

Expansion of rights? So you mean bringing them in line with those rights that straight people have? Otherwise we would be discriminating against gay people. Which effectively means we are giving them equal rights.

Allowing gay people to operate in life normally just like straight people actually is a case of offering equal rights. This has everything to do with marriage and adoption.

Tefal · 8 Jul 2015 at 12:42

Thompson_NCL said:
Gay marriage and adoption has nothing to do with equal rights, it has to do with the expansion of rights.

what rights have they got that you havnt?

Schlong&Stable · 8 Jul 2015 at 12:48

RoboCod said:
Expansion of rights? So you mean bringing them in line with those rights that straight people have? Otherwise we would be discriminating against gay people. Which effectively means we are giving them equal rights.

Allowing gay people to operate in life normally just like straight people actually is a case of offering equal rights. This has everything to do with marriage and adoption.

But gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships, they are different. So there was no discrimination against homosexuals, because they could and did marry people of the opposite sex just the same as the rest of us.

Now they have expanded the right to marry to homosexual couples.

And I take it you've conceded the rest of your argument was nonsense, right?

Tefal said:
what rights have they got that you havnt?

In terms of marriage? None. But they had the same rights as me before hand too. Which is precisely my point. We have changed (expanded) the definition of marriage.

Tosno · 8 Jul 2015 at 12:50

Angilion said:
Your statement is the belief that all men are very different to all women and that all women learn the same things from all men and all men learn the same things from all women. That is only possible if all men are the same person and all women are the same person, so your statement requires belief that all men are the same person and all women are the same person. If you acknowledged the possibility of individual people, you could not believe your own statement.

I still have no idea what you are talking about but I like the star trek part.

You talked about heterosexual couples becoming one flesh. Which would require being physically combined into a hybrid entity.

If you want to use words as religious euphemisms with different meanings, that's not my problem.

Tefal answered you well what I meant, it's obvious.

Raymond Lin · 8 Jul 2015 at 12:52

Was watching the West Wing again last night.

President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police?

Here's one that's really important 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

thep02 · 8 Jul 2015 at 12:58

Thompson_NCL said:
. Which is precisely my point. We have changed (expanded) the definition of marriage.

Why does that bother you so much?

Tunney · 8 Jul 2015 at 13:03

I <3 The West Wing. I wish we had a political leader as inspiring as Barlett, Santos or Vinick.