Gay marriage soapbox

scardeal wrote:

Chris_V wrote: So, because my wife had a hysterectomy and cannot have children, I should not/cannot be married to her? We are not having children of our own. Ever.

Why should the state care then? Why do you care that the government recognizes your union or not? Do you need the state to give you some sort of approval for your life? Are you not comfortable in knowing that you've committed yourself to your wife? Think about this from the government's perspective: why give tax incentives to married couples at all? Why should married couples be allowed to file for income taxes as a couple? What's the point of tax incentives (credits, deductions, etc.) in the first place? Why should it care to the point that it's willing to reduce its income (especially considering our deficit)?

With all due respect, but that is a bs non answer.

Your point about marriage is for procreation. When asked about hetero couples who can't have kids, your answer is why should the government care. Well, then why should they care if gays get married then? Total non answer.

Then the "hot button" taxes issue, which is nothing in comparison to the real benefits that married couples get- property ownership, visitation, succession, etc. taxes is another bs overrated issue.

So, explain how it's different when two people in a relationship can't have kids, but in one case they are the same sex, the other opposite. You care, that is clear.

wbjones wrote: "Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists)...

That is correct.

He wrote that phrase 26 years after he authored the Declaration of Independence, and 2 days before he began attending Christian church services held... get this... INSIDE the primary hall of the US House of Representatives. (which he continued attending throughout his presidency). They continued holding church services in the Capital until 1868.

Many presidents from Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln attended services there.

In fact, a Christian church occupied the Capital building even BEFORE Congress did (starting while the Capital was still under construction in 1795- Congress didn't occupy the building until 1800).

Honestly, I am not even sure how to process this or understand what it means in terms of interpreting Mr. Jefferson's "wall of separation" words. The only thing I AM sure of is that we don't know what we think we know about Mr. Jefferson's intent when he penned those words.

racerdave600 wrote: Nowhere in the Bible does it give punishments on Earth for not obeying laws.

You ever, uh, read one of them Bibles?

They're all the time talking about how ye should stone him that he be dead and ye shall then flog him and then ye shall yadda yadda torturous nonsense. I'm sure with a quick flick of the google machine I could come up with countless passages, but it would be academic.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: Nowhere in the Bible does it give punishments on Earth for not obeying laws.

You ever, uh, read one of them Bibles? They're all the time talking about how ye should stone him that he be dead and ye shall then flog him and then ye shall yadda yadda torturous nonsense. I'm sure with a quick flick of the google machine I could come up with countless passages, but it would be academic.

leviticus

poopshovel wrote: Yup. BTW, please find the phrase "church and state" in the constitution, and I'll eat my hat.

Easy - it's right there after the clause about marriage. Right before the passage that contains the word God.

See it now?

SVreX wrote:

wbjones wrote: "Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists)...

That is correct. He wrote that phrase 26 years after he authored the Declaration of Independence, and 2 days before he began attending Christian church services held... get this... INSIDE the primary hall of the US House of Representatives. (which he continued attending throughout his presidency). They continued holding church services in the Capital until 1868. Many presidents from Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln attended services there. In fact, a Christian church occupied the Capital building even BEFORE Congress did (starting while the Capital was still under construction in 1795- Congress didn't occupy the building until 1800). Honestly, I am not even sure how to process this or understand what it means in terms of interpreting Mr. Jefferson's "wall of separation" words. The only thing I AM sure of is that we don't know what we think we know about Mr. Jefferson's intent when he penned those words.

Jeffeson also created the Jefferson Bible, an edition edited to leave out the bits he thought were wrong; i.e. the supernatural/miracle stuff Jesus is reported to have done.

Yeah, well I guess that makes him like a lot of folks- creating God in our own image.

My point was that the "wall" that was allegedly the intent behind the Constitution isn't so convincing a restriction on religion when read in context.

JoeyM wrote: Jeffeson also created the Jefferson Bible, an edition edited to leave out the bits he thought were wrong; i.e. the supernatural/miracle stuff Jesus is reported to have done.

I believe his intent was to remove all the dogma from the bible and concentrate on the parables and messages of Jesus. So, basically, removing most of the Religion from it.

Basically, he took out all the parts that our religious leaders focus on today and only left the parts where some cat named Jesus had some pretty keen insight on how to live.

Well that's no fun at all! How am I suppose to feel superior to anyone if you take out all the judgmental parts?! When I say "judge no lets you be judged" I want you to know that God is on my side and I'm right!

Wonder how a candidate for President would to today if he edited his own bible? Think that would go over well?

Think of the rambling in the G.W.B. version!

SVreX wrote: My point was that the "wall" that was allegedly the intent behind the Constitution isn't so convincing a restriction on religion when read in context.

Who here is talking about limiting religion?

Your ability to practice your faith only gets limited when it conflicts with the rights of another. If your religion believes that you should stone people to death who have committed adultery, you're not allowed to do that because that limits their right to life.

We're talking about not requiring people to follow the rules of religions they don't believe in. If I eat a ham sandwich in front of a Rabbi, I'm not restricting his religion.

Aeromoto wrote: Why can't religious wingnuts see that humans are already overburdening the planet and therefore destroying it through overpopulation? Oh yea, I forgot, when things get really bad, they can prey and the magical guy in the sky can wave his wand and make it all better. Problem solved.

Yep, the invisible guy in the sky will kill 'em all off (except his chosen few, that is) by making it rain for 40 days and 40 nights. Oops, I forgot: next time it's by fire.

Or maybe he can just smack everyone on the head with his wand, turn them all gay and in 100 years the planet will be back to supporting only the lower animals.

Trans_Maro wrote: Think of the rambling in the G.W.B. version!

Can you imagine the appendix on that thing for all the made up words.

ThePhranc wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote: Think of the rambling in the G.W.B. version!

Can you imagine the appendix on that thing for all the made up words.

I would love to see that version of the bible. Even better would be hearing him read it.

scardeal wrote: Statistically, that tends to happen most often in an intact family of a mother, father and children.

The fact that there are hundreds of years of data on hetero marriages and almost none on gay marriage doesn't skew those results at all? I'm not saying that it is not true, but I certainly don't think the statistics can be believed at this stage. I mean, statistically, more straight marriages end in divorce than gay. More straight husbands murder their legal partners than gay. More straight wives cheat on their husbands than gay. Even if you say per thousand marriages, you are still comparing a group that is well-established against a group that is very cutting edge. Not an apples-to apples comparison.

aircooled wrote:

JoeyM wrote: Jeffeson also created the Jefferson Bible, an edition edited to leave out the bits he thought were wrong; i.e. the supernatural/miracle stuff Jesus is reported to have done.

I believe his intent was to remove all the dogma from the bible and concentrate on the parables and messages of Jesus. So, basically, removing most of the Religion from it.

That's a decent summary. wiki says:

In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson states that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews," and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity."

...and describes the contents of the book as

begins with an account of Jesus’s birth without references to angels, genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection are also absent from The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[4] It does, however, include references to Noah's Ark, the Great Flood, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming, as well as Heaven, Hell, and the Devil.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Wonder how a candidate for President would to today if he edited his own bible? Think that would go over well?

Imagine if a front runner believed some Smith guy spoke with angels in upstate NY in the 1820s and got the whole god thing straight and that magic underwear protects them from evil.

Crazy talk! Oh.... wait...

scardeal wrote: the social science conclusion that intact families produce better citizens

There are plenty of social scientist that don't agree with that conclusion (if by intact families you mean hetro families).

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: Nowhere in the Bible does it give punishments on Earth for not obeying laws.

You ever, uh, read one of them Bibles? They're all the time talking about how ye should stone him that he be dead and ye shall then flog him and then ye shall yadda yadda torturous nonsense. I'm sure with a quick flick of the google machine I could come up with countless passages, but it would be academic.

I have, but it appears you have not. Just like any interview or book you want, you can pick any quote and make it to mean anything. In fact, Jesus said you without sin cast the first stone. I'm not going to get into a theology discussion, but I have read it, and I stand by my statement. I don't use google as a Bible reference.

93EXCivic wrote:

ThePhranc wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote: Think of the rambling in the G.W.B. version!

Can you imagine the appendix on that thing for all the made up words.

I would love to see that version of the bible. Even better would be hearing him read it.

"So like, then jesus was all " Pharoah, don't you know Abraham Washington ended slavery like, way back in the 50's!? Let 'you people' go!" No wait. That was Moses. Where's my hat?"

racerdave600 wrote: In fact, Jesus said you without sin cast the first stone.

In fact, a panel of 19th century English linguists said he said that whilst they were re-translating it to be more Monarchy friendly at the behest of the king.

I get your meaning - but the bible is an assembled list of texts from a greater body of available stories saying what people wanted it to say as much as anyone interpreting bits of it out of context are tailoring it's message.

Thomas Jefferson was a fan of the peaceful message of Christ but he was not any more religious that was necessary for appearances of the day. He distilled what he thought was an appropriate message for teaching citizens how to behave themselves from the story. I do not think he had much inclination for making himself the next Joseph Smith or Bringham Young.

racerdave600 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: Nowhere in the Bible does it give punishments on Earth for not obeying laws.

You ever, uh, read one of them Bibles?

I have, but it appears you have not. Just like any interview or book you want, you can pick any quote and make it to mean anything. In fact, Jesus said you without sin cast the first stone. I'm not going to get into a theology discussion, but I have read it, and I stand by my statement. I don't use google as a Bible reference.

Have you read ANY of the Old Testament? Maybe not so much on the stonings, burnings, etc. in the New Testament, granted. But the Old Testament is still part of the Bible I read.

Sorry ,I thought this was the hot redhead thread

TRoglodyte wrote: Sorry ,I thought this was the hot redhead thread

Only if she's a lesbian. Which is okay, because God hates fags but thinks lezbos are totally hawt.

Or... " I support gay marriage, but only if the chicks are hot."