Michael Sam - gay

[poptart]

Having no record of Jesus speaking on homosexuality proves exactly NOTHING.
Do you know how long the list would be if we set about naming all the ills that we have no record of Jesus having spoken of?

We do have record of Jesus verifying God's establishment of marriage, and what it is.
Matthew 19:4-5.


You go way off the rails when you assert that not supporting homosexual marriage = not loving the homosexual as yourself.

Recognizing that marriage is man/woman is just something which is very obvious -- and reflects no lack of love.

It certainly doesn't mean that homosexuals are being hated.

Biblically, the homosexuals are simply attempting to assign something to themselves which can not be theirs.


It doesn't matter to me what the S. Court rules, Jsc.

I know what marriage is.

[Dinsdale]

Hey Pop, does Matthew 7: 1-3 mean anything to you? (Yeah, I had to look that up.)

the Archbishop of Canterbury

A position my great great grandfather held (who reunited the Church of England).

[poptart]

Understanding a basic definition of what marriage is is judging the homosxuals?

Is that really what you think?


In society, we have an abundance of laws and standards.
Every time someone does not meet a standard, are we to say that this person is being wrongly judged?


I am glad you opened your Bible, though. :wink:

[Dinsdale]

Fuck Matthew -- if you ain't Angelican, you're a heathen.

[War Wagon]

Can you see your penis when you take a leak?

Why would he need or want to?

Are you a gazer, Screwey?

[Screw_Michigan]

Do you have the same problem? It's OK.

[War Wagon]

Problem?

I don't need to see my dick to be able to piss straight.

[Smackie Chan]

Can you see your penis when you take a leak?

And this concerns you, because?????

Professional curiosity. Is it OK if he leaves some brochures at the front desk?

[Diego in Seattle]

Understanding a basic definition of what marriage is is judging the homosxuals?

Is that really what you think?

1) The basic definition of marriage is two people entering into a contract to live together for the rest of their lives. Anything beyond that (especially that which is derived from a book of tales) is inconsequential.

2) Denying the rights & privileges provided by that marriage/contract based on any religious document is passing judgement. SYHTLTW.

In society, we have an abundance of laws and standards.

Which must meet the overriding standard of the United States Constitution. That means that laws cannot show favoritism for any religion or religion at all.

Every time someone does not meet a standard, are we to say that this person is being wrongly judged?

When that law or standard is based off of a religious document it would be accurate to say that the person is being judged incorrectly. The 1st Amendment out front should have told you so.

That conservatives accuse liberals of abadoning the Constitution is....ponderous.

[poptart]

When that law or standard is based off of a religious document it would be accurate to say that the person is being judged incorrectly.

Dinsdale said I was not paying attention to Matthew 7:1-3.


Matthew 7:1-3
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


I absolutely do not judge the homosexual.
What he does is up to him.
He is no better or worse than I am.
We are all sinners.

Biblically, two homosexuals do not = a marriage.
Never.
That's the name of that tune.

Throughout life, there are standards which must be met in order to be legally allowed to do things.
If a person does not meet a standard, it's absurd to claim that they are being wrongly judged.


Your entire premise -- that the homosexual is being wrongly judged and is being discriminated against if he is denied marriage is... a JOKE.

You would have us believe that throughout most all of human history, the homosexual has been downtrodden and discriminated against because societies have overwhelmingly recognized marriage as man/woman.

Only in the last couple of decades have we become SO enlightened.
We've become so enlightened as to recognize that a man covering his dick with shit while tearing another man's assholes apart = marriage.

It's goofball stuff.


Down through history, marriage has quite correctly been recognized as man/woman.

It's a rightful and obvious standard.

[Diego in Seattle]

When that law or standard is based off of a religious document it would be accurate to say that the person is being judged incorrectly.

Dinsdale said I was not paying attention to Matthew 7:1-3.


Matthew 7:1-3
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


I absolutely do not judge the homosexual.
What he does is up to him.
He is no better or worse than I am.
We are all sinners.

I'll agree the equality aspect.

Biblically, two homosexuals do not = a marriage.
Never.
That's the name of that tune.

Throughout life, there are standards which must be met in order to be legally allowed to do things.
If a person does not meet a standard, it's absurd to claim that they are being wrongly judged.

Try reading slower, as apparently your reading comprehension isn't cutting it lately. Legal standards cannot be established with regard to any religion. Nor can they be established for arbitrary reasons. Unless you can establish that allowing same-sex marriages will harm others, you've got no leg to constitutional leg to stand on. And yes, denying rights & privileges to others that you enjoy is passing judgement.

[Felix]

You brushed aside what is clear within the Bible, muddied the waters -----> and pushed your agenda.


Those thumping the Bible to pimp homosexual marriage are about as low as the bogus TV evangelists who thump the Bible to deceive dullards into enriching their bank account.

almost as low as those that appoint themselves as interpreters of "gods words" and tell people they're going to rot in everlasting torture.....almost as bad as people that pontificate they're riding the escalator to heaven, while others are on the elevator to hell.......

[mvscal]

And your biblical points are wrong as well.

Marriage, according to the Bible:

Curiously absent from your graphic is any depiction of homosexual marriage. You appear to have kicked your own ass.

Considering that, why don't we see religious rightwingers protesting and demanding prohibition of divorce?

I have heard them complaining about the ease of no fault divorce and the damage it does to families quite often. It used to be a lot more difficult to get a divorce.

[Moving Sale]

You are a stupid self loathing racist that takes black cock in your ass so the chances your argument is shit is fairly high. You are a fucking mess. Where is your next downgrade move? Is there a place worse than Omaha?

[poptart]

Diego, if you want to call me out for "reading comprehension," perhaps you should recognize that the discussion was involving both the Bible and the law.
Two elements.
If I'm asked about the Bible, it's a little hard for me not to speak of... the Bible.

And yes, denying rights & privileges to others that you enjoy is passing judgement.

Some 15 year olds can cite a compelling personal situation which makes it necessary and rightful for them to be able to receive a drivers license.
14 year olds..

They should be granted their license.
Y or N?

What's your judgment?

And your biblical points are wrong as well.

Marriage, according to the Bible

1) Are you high?

2) Take note of mvscal's retort

3) The Bible shows us all different elements of human behavior. It's all there in the Bible. Sure doesn't = God's marriage plan. God clearly showed us His marriage plan in Genesis 2:24. This is what He established for us. He has allowed many things. And even today, He is allowing (so far) the perversion of "gay marriage" to go on. That does not make it His wish. Be sure, there is a time when grace ends, my friend.

4) Don't lie. If Christians spoke more openly, vocally, and often about divorce, it wouldn't deter you in the least from criticizing them for not welcoming male sodomites as married couples.

almost as low as those that appoint themselves as interpreters of "gods words" and tell people they're going to rot in everlasting torture.....almost as bad as people that pontificate they're riding the escalator to heaven, while others are on the elevator to hell.......

I think there is a heaven and hell.
You think I'm full of shit.

Looks to me as if we're even, Felix.

[poptart]

denying rights & privileges to others that you enjoy

No one's rights and privileges are denied.

Man, find woman to marry ---> and certain "benefits" are yours.
Woman, find man to marry ---> and certain "benefits" are yours.

ALL men and women have the same opportunity.


What we have is a small minority of the population insisting that the fundamental definition of a societal pillar (marriage) must be altered in a dramatic way, so as to fit their own personal preference/deviance.


Guess it pretty well fits in with the "Me, me, me. I am also entitled to..." age we live in.


Quite pitiful.

[Diego in Seattle]

denying rights & privileges to others that you enjoy

No one's rights and privileges are denied.

Man, find woman to marry ---> and certain "benefits" are yours.
Woman, find man to marry ---> and certain "benefits" are yours.

ALL men and women have the same opportunity.

False dichotomy, asswipe.

Heterosexuals are given "benefits" when they marry the person of their own choice.
What makes their choice any more deserving of those benefits than those who are homosexual?

What we have is a small minority of the population insisting that the fundamental definition of a societal pillar (marriage) must be altered in a dramatic way, so as to fit their own personal preference/deviance.


Guess it pretty well fits in with the "Me, me, me. I am also entitled to..." age we live in.


Quite pitiful.

I'd say that you're describing your viewpoint more than mine. Denying others the same rights & privileges that you enjoy w/o any valid justification other than you just don't like their choice or because your book of fairy tales doesn't allow for it is about as "it's all about me" as it gets. But that's pretty typical these days for conservatives these days...

[Diego in Seattle]

Diego, if you want to call me out for "reading comprehension," perhaps you should recognize that the discussion was involving both the Bible and the law.
Two elements.
If I'm asked about the Bible, it's a little hard for me not to speak of... the Bible.

And yes, denying rights & privileges to others that you enjoy is passing judgement.

Some 15 year olds can cite a compelling personal situation which makes it necessary and rightful for them to be able to receive a drivers license.
14 year olds..

They should be granted their license.
Y or N?

What's your judgment?

At least in CA the law does (rightfully so) allow for that. Was there a reason for this non-sequitur question?

And your biblical points are wrong as well.

Marriage, according to the Bible

1) Are you high?

2) Take note of mvscal's retort

3) The Bible shows us all different elements of human behavior. It's all there in the Bible. Sure doesn't = God's marriage plan. God clearly showed us His marriage plan in Genesis 2:24. This is what He established for us. He has allowed many things. And even today, He is allowing (so far) the perversion of "gay marriage" to go on. That does not make it His wish. Be sure, there is a time when grace ends, my friend.

4) Don't lie. If Christians spoke more openly, vocally, and often about divorce, it wouldn't deter you in the least from criticizing them for not welcoming male sodomites as married couples.

3) Interesting that you quote from Genesis, a book from the Old Testament. Since you're using that part of your book of fables to justify your pharisee viewpoint do you think the Oakland Faiders should be killed for working on Sunday (as prescribed in Exodus 35:2)? Should college fb only be allowed to continue to happen if they all wear gloves (to avoid touching the skin of a dead pig - Leviticus 11:7)? Do you burn members of your family who dare to wear clothing of more than one thread? If the answer is no to any of these questions, you're a fucking hypocrite (probably not a news flash for most of us).

4) Mathew 7:4-5 covers this pretty well. The bible discusses divorce a hell of a lot more than it does same-sex marriage, but that doesn't keep you from focusing on the acts of others. The bible also covers companies like Walmart in Deuteronomy 24:14 as well as Proverbs 14:31 & James 5:1-6, but that doesn't stop you conservatives from not only shopping there, but praising them. I'd get that plank out of your eye before worrying about two other people who love each other wanting to marry. Just sayin...

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Guess it pretty well fits in with the "Me, me, me. I am also entitled to..." age we live in.


Quite pitiful.

Yeah, humans wanting the same benefits as other humans. What a bunch of entitled brats.

[mvscal]

Where is your next downgrade move? Is there a place worse than Omaha?

I guess if you're a bitter, lipsing faggot with a bad bleach job who can barely see over the steering wheel, Omaha would be a rough go. It's a great place to be for normal human beings, though.

Enjoy your collapsing economy, ridiculously high cost of living and one of the highest tax burdens in the country. Businesses and productive citizens are fleeing your shit state in droves. That isn't an accident. California is a sick joke.

Oh, but the weather is nice...

[Moving Sale]

I'm glad you are enjoying the downgrade and pimping it as an upgrade. Is the black cock better? Is that why you like it you self loafing racist fuck stain? What's next? You moving to Nigera?

[mvscal]

MVS is officially on the Midwest bandwagon - Rack that

I'm a native. It was like coming home. I love Omaha. It's got a booming economy with plenty of opportunities in numerous sectors especially in finance and construction. It's going gangbusters out here.

Dimunitive scabs aren't welcome. We can wipe our own asses.

[War Wagon]

I preferred Council Bluffs (some great bars) when I was stationed at Offutt AFB, but yeah, I liked Omaha as well. Is Ak-Sar-Ben still open? Doubt it, but I used to bet on the horses there. And the greyhounds at Bluffs run.

If you get a chance, visit the SAC museum.

[Moving Sale]

I'm a native. It was like coming home. I love Omaha. It's got a booming economy with plenty of opportunities in numerous sectors especially in finance and construction. It's going gangbusters out here.

Which is why 2 of the 3 largest employers are government entities and the other 4 out of the top 6 are health related including one that is also a public entity. Lots of finance and construction there dolt.

We can wipe our own asses.

But you need help when it comes to sticking a black cock in it. Ponderous.

[mvscal]

It's time to face facts, tiny. Not only do you need to stand on a phone book to suck a dick, you are also a complete idiot as evidenced by the fact that you seem to believe that you have gleaned some meaningful information from a google search of largest employers.

Yes, dumbfuck...finance. TD Ameritrade, Berkshire Hathaway, Mutual of Omaha and First National of Nebraska (the largest private bank in the country) etc. The FIRE sector accounts for 9% of the employment in Omaha. It was also one of a small handful of cities in the country to experience a net increase in jobs during this ongoing economic depression.

Short, dumb and bitter is no way to go through life, kid.

[mvscal]

I preferred Council Bluffs

I'm not surprised you favored Counciltucky.

Is Ak-Sar-Ben still open? Doubt it, but I used to bet on the horses there.

Long gone. It has been/is being replaced by Aksarben Village. I'm not too far west from there.

[Dinsdale]

denying rights & privileges to others that you enjoy

No one's rights and privileges are denied.

Man, find woman to marry ---> and certain "benefits" are yours.
Woman, find man to marry ---> and certain "benefits" are yours.

ALL men and women have the same opportunity.

While I've gone from questioning the validity of gay marriage to complete not-give-a-fuckedness, there's a bigger issue here.

While I'm maybe not the most comfortable around GaySC810 and his poofting ilk, what I'm much less comfortable of is putting the government in charge of anything without a strongly compelling reason. Since there's no reason whatsoever for the government to have any screening process whatsoever for who marries who, I gotta side with the buggerers here.

[smackaholic]

The fukked up thing is the way government treats married/unmarried people differently with regards to taxes. People should marry/not marry for personal reasons. It should not be because of tax benefits.

[Diego in Seattle]

I dont give a shit if queers want to have civil unions with each other. All relationships that people want recognized by law should be civil unions. Make it all even, gay, straight, polygamist...whatever, they all have to get civil unions to be on each others insurance or whatever it is the pillow biters are complaining about. "Marriage" is a religious institution and this country is suppose to have a separation of church and state, so lets keep government out of marriage as well
There should be no tax benefit to civil unions (or marriages) and dependents should cost you more, not less

I agree with everything above. But you're delusional if you think everyone (especially the thumpers) is going to give up on the legal institution of marriage.

[poptart]

3) Interesting that you quote from Genesis, a book from the Old Testament. Since you're using that part of your book of fables to justify your pharisee viewpoint do you think the Oakland Faiders should be killed for working on Sunday (as prescribed in Exodus 35:2)? Should college fb only be allowed to continue to happen if they all wear gloves (to avoid touching the skin of a dead pig - Leviticus 11:7)? Do you burn members of your family who dare to wear clothing of more than one thread? If the answer is no to any of these questions, you're a fucking hypocrite (probably not a news flash for most of us).

The Old Testament Law was entirely and eternally concluded in Christ.
The believer is no longer bound by the Law.
It is finished in Christ.


No, the Bible, from Genesis ---> and in to the New Testament, absolutely tells us God's marriage intention for us.
And man/man marriage is surely not a part of it.

I've posted a clear summary of it for Jsc at least a couple of times.
If you want to see it, I'll post it again.
But I suspect that you really don't care, anyway.

1) The basic definition of marriage is two people entering into a contract to live together for the rest of their lives. Anything beyond that (especially that which is derived from a book of tales) is inconsequential.

It's more than that.

Marriage is an institution which the people of society use to assure that obligations are met, that children are accounted for and taken care of, and that a societal structure is kept.

It's easy to notice that in the overwhelming majority of cases, BY CHOICE, marriages are performed in a RELIGIOUS setting -- done BEFORE GOD, WITH PROMISES MADE BEFORE GOD.

This is what we see.
This is THE CHOICE that the vast majority of the population makes.

Don't ignore it.

This is the history of marriage in America - and it continues to this day.
That it is a SPIRITUAL bond - made with a recognition of God and with vows made BEFORE GOD.

It's not a -- mere contract -- to the vast majority of the population.


But you want to brush that aside and pretend that such a majority does not exist and that their view of what constitutes marriage in THEIR society does not matter.

If the guys in black robes tell us that sodomites also must be allowed to say they are married, so it is...

WHAT marriage is is something which has a profound effect on the people and the culture.

The sweeping in of something entirely "different" -- against the will of the people, also opens up an entire new can of worms.

What other forms of "marriage" must the people now be subject to?

I suspect the list will grow quite long.

[poptart]

At least in CA the law does (rightfully so) allow for that. Was there a reason for this non-sequitur question?

15 year olds can get a drivers license in Cali if they can show "need" for one?

What about 14 year olds?

How about younger than that?

[Diego in Seattle]

3) Interesting that you quote from Genesis, a book from the Old Testament. Since you're using that part of your book of fables to justify your pharisee viewpoint do you think the Oakland Faiders should be killed for working on Sunday (as prescribed in Exodus 35:2)? Should college fb only be allowed to continue to happen if they all wear gloves (to avoid touching the skin of a dead pig - Leviticus 11:7)? Do you burn members of your family who dare to wear clothing of more than one thread? If the answer is no to any of these questions, you're a fucking hypocrite (probably not a news flash for most of us).

The Old Testament Law was entirely and eternally concluded in Christ.
The believer is no longer bound by the Law.
It is finished in Christ.


No, the Bible, from Genesis ---> and in to the New Testament, absolutely tells us God's marriage intention for us.
And man/man marriage is surely not a part of it.

If the OT tells us God's intention for marriage, then it also tells us his intention for working on the Sabbath, touching the skin of a dead pig, wearing cloth made from more than two different threads as well as God's intention for rjack to sell his daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7). Either we're bound to what the OT says or we aren't. To say otherwise is picking & choosing which parts of the bible one likes (IOW, a hypocrite).

[Diego in Seattle]

1) The basic definition of marriage is two people entering into a contract to live together for the rest of their lives. Anything beyond that (especially that which is derived from a book of tales) is inconsequential.

It's more than that.

Marriage is an institution which the people of society use to assure that obligations are met, that children are accounted for and taken care of, and that a societal structure is kept.

It's easy to notice that in the overwhelming majority of cases, BY CHOICE, marriages are performed in a RELIGIOUS setting -- done BEFORE GOD, WITH PROMISES MADE BEFORE GOD.

This is what we see.
This is THE CHOICE that the vast majority of the population makes.

Don't ignore it.

This is the history of marriage in America - and it continues to this day.
That it is a SPIRITUAL bond - made with a recognition of God and with vows made BEFORE GOD.

It's not a -- mere contract -- to the vast majority of the population.


But you want to brush that aside and pretend that such a majority does not exist and that their view of what constitutes marriage in THEIR society does not matter.

If the guys in black robes tell us that sodomites also must be allowed to say they are married, so it is...

WHAT marriage is is something which has a profound effect on the people and the culture.

The sweeping in of something entirely "different" -- against the will of the people, also opens up an entire new can of worms.

What other forms of "marriage" must the people now be subject to?

I suspect the list will grow quite long.

So because a lot of people get married in a church, that means they're christians & believe marriage is only for the church...boy, are you an idiot.

How many times have churches been hosts to shotgun marriages? Was it the couple's belief in God that took them there post-coitus, or was it possible family pressure to tie the knot in a fashion acceptable to the family?

You claim that the majority of the population thinks that marriage is a spiritual institution. Interesting claim you got there, considering that last year the Gallup Poll found that the number of Americans claiming regular church attendance to be at 39%. Yeah, we Americans are really spiritual.

You're going to trot out that tired & failed argument that marriage is for the creation & raising of children? So why hasn't the ability to marry been revoked from infertile couples & geriatrics? Once again you conservatives are showing how hypocritical you are. Nothing new there.

And how will same-sex marriage bring down our societal structure? I'd say that the hetero marriages like Britney Spears, Kid Rock/Pamela Anderson and Dennis Rodman/Carmen Electra have done more to erode societal structure (if that's even possible) than most same-sex marriages. Oops, there's that plank in your eye...yet again.

[Diego in Seattle]

Rack Mizzou!

[poptart]

Either we're bound to what the OT says or we aren't. To say otherwise is picking & choosing which parts of the bible one likes (IOW, a hypocrite).

No true.

Christians are not bound by The Law.

But The Law which God gave (within the OT) is just a part of the entire OT.

Genesis 2:24 is not the Law.
It was part of creation and it is simply what God established for man.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Jesus verified the standard in Matthew 19:4-5.

Matthew 19:4-5
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?


Homosexual conduct is NEVER shown in a positive light in the Bible and in fact, is repeatedly shown to be extremely troubling, unwelcome, and flat out dangerous.
Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell?

The Jsc's of the world must cut off oxygen flow to their brain as they pretzel themselves around to such an extreme -- trying to massage Biblical support for fruit marriage, of all things.

Anyone with half a wit about them knows it entirely bogus.


Read Romans 1:20-32 - New Testament.
It explains the homosexual situation with some depth.

Polygamy is clearly supported in the Bible.

You know almost nothing about the Bible.

[Truman]

Rack Mizzou!

Those Westboro losers never had a chance, D'ego. Not only was their extremist, hate-filled message not welcome at Mizzou, those fuckers come from fucking Lawrence! Hell, their "church" is only blocks away from the KU campus. I've seen them standing on the corner at the edge of that miserable school holding placards extolling their vile messages. MizzouFan doesn't need an excuse to burn Jayhawkers.

On a related note, D'ego, the Westborons took their traveling minstrel show er, ministry to a little burgh just south of KC to spew their hate at a fallen soldier's funeral. Those wicked people couldn't come within miles of the memorial, as nearly 10,000 area bikers swarmed the roads of Harrisonville and brought traffic to a dead stop. "God Hates Gays!" as a political message doesn't play well here in the Flyover.

[Felix]

We've become so enlightened as to recognize that a man covering his dick with shit while tearing another man's assholes apart = marriage.

so your entire understanding of a gay marriage is that sex is at the central core is that right? is sex the central core of your marriage? I seriously doubt it....my marriage is based on a myriad of elements with sex being simply a part of it....why do you believe that a gay marriage doesn't possess the same elements that constitute a heterosexual marriage?

[Diego in Seattle]

I have actually studied the Bible, as distinguished from merely reading it and coming up with whatever interpretation that suits my needs.

Which is why I know that to try to apply such strict lessons from it as you do is absurd.

Every third grade goes thru the lesson where something is said to one student, who then says it to another and then another. Of course, by the time this process goes thru the entire class, the original statement is completely gone. Now multiply that over thousands of years and many different languages.

Or perhaps more to the point...

The gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus. What prosecutor is going to go to court with a case based on witness testimony (and perhaps not simply first hand accounts) that's based on what happened 40 years ago? Solid case you have there, popthumper.

[Left Seater]

But when children die because parents made a choice, well that is nothing less than murder, and should be treated as such.

How does that read now?

First off, I am taking the Bible completely out of my part of this discussion. I agree that in the example you cited the parents are certainly to blame. I doubt it meets the criteria for murder in most jurisdictions but I wouldn't argue it if someone got it to stick.

Further, a person who kills a pregnant woman can in many jurisdictions be charged with two counts of murder. Most of the population agrees with that. But if the mother decides to be the one who does the killing it is ok.

Given those three examples, how can one be ok? Please explain how anyone can be consistent in their arguement and claim the snake example is murder, the pregnant mom is double murder and the third is a choice?

Again, God and Bible notwithstanding, all three examples above are wrong. To argue that any one of those choices is acceptable opens the door for the other examples to be acceptable as well.

[War Wagon]

You're a stone cold hypocrite Jsc and your "reasoning" is ass backwards.