If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gallup)   In the latest attempt to overheat the Obvious tag into ionized plasma, Gallup releases a poll showing that the primary reason Americans give for opposing marriage equality is Religion   (gallup.com) divider line 213
    More: Obvious, Gallup, Americans, same-sex marriages, laws of nature, political lines, opinion polls, faiths  
•       •       •

1132 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Dec 2012 at 1:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-06 02:09:40 PM

Moopy Mac: "Explicitly condemn" is a bit strong, particularly with the countless different translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.


That's fair on Corinthians, but there's not really any other way to read Romans.
 
2012-12-06 02:10:01 PM

Gyrfalcon: Lionel Mandrake: abb3w: The number two and three answers look to boil down to "because".

Or specifically, "because religion"

Yeah, aren't the first three answers the same answer? Seems like "Religion", "morally wrong" and "marriage is between a man and a woman" are all restatements of the same thing.


The only response that isn't directly based on religion is "Civil unions are sufficient", and you can even make a case for that one being religiously based.
 
2012-12-06 02:10:11 PM
Gallup releases a poll showing that the primary reason Americans give for opposing marriage equality is Religion stupidity.

Now we're getting to the root of the problem.
 
2012-12-06 02:10:22 PM

codergirl42: urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

It has nothing to do with forcing churches to do anything. Having a secular ceremony isn't any less important than a religious one. It's the legal framework that differs. Each state has different laws and benefits when it comes to civil unions. In washington state we had everything but marriage civil unions. So gay couples got the same benefits as straight couples but we werent allow to call it marriage. Other states may have less rights associated with civil unions than marriage. I think you are confusing secular and religious marriage which are just different types of ceremonies with civil unions and marriage which are different legal entities.

Link


Thx again.
Sorry for threadjacking, everyone.
 
2012-12-06 02:12:31 PM
They have to say "religion." They can't give the actual reason, which is "I'm a bully," because it hurts their feelings when anyone calls them out on being a bully.
 
2012-12-06 02:12:37 PM

mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

So, the compromise is don't recognize their marriage? Why not life imprisonment or castration if it so wrong?

Leviticus also says eating lobster is also an abomination and those people should be killed. New Testament once again quiet on the subject. Perhaps Government should not issue restaurant licenses to a place that sellslobsters. Or maybe cut off the hands off fish mongers who sell lobster? Unclear. Very complicated matter. We need to study it out and pray.


Both boldened parts are wrong. Jesus pretty plainly states that his followers shouldn't worry so much about what they put into their mouths, but about what comes out. (Citation needed from someone less-lazy than me, but it's in one of the gospels.)

He said it in response to someone asking him about the Old Testament's rules about food, but it's no leap at all to apply the mentality to homosexual (and heterosexual, for that matter) behavior. How we treat others is much more important to Jesus than how we choose to satisfy our biological imperatives.
 
2012-12-06 02:13:19 PM

lennavan: 404 page not found: lennavan: This is cute and all but we shouldn't be doing rights by popular opinion.

Equal rights, cute and all?

The article is of course about a poll. The poll is cute and all. If 100% of people were for gay marriage it shouldn't mean a damn thing. If 100% of people were against it shouldn't either.

It's okay to be upset but you shouldn't be searching the thread for comments trying to find something to be upset about.


YOU, MOTHERFECKER, ARE GOING TO PAY. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS THE BALL LICKER. I'M GONNA FECK YOUR MOTHER WHILE YOU WATCH AND CRY LIKE A LITTLE WHINY BŒTCH. ONCE I GET TO HOLLYWOOD AND FIND THE FECK WHO MADE THIS POST I'M GOING TO MAKE HIM EAT MY SHET AND THEN SHET OUT MY SHET AND THEN MAKE HIM EAT HIS SHET THAT'S MADE UP OF MY SHET THAT I MADE HIM EAT.
 
2012-12-06 02:13:44 PM

urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


A church isn't ever forced to marry anyone. A church can refuse to perform a marriage between two people for any reason as it is - you can't walk into a Catholic church and demand to be married if you haven't gone through whatever procedures are there. Two Christians don't automatically get a wedding at a synagogue either just because they want one.

Marriage for straight couples and civil unions for gay/lesbian couples isn't adequate. Just like "separate but equal" was not equal at all.
 
2012-12-06 02:18:28 PM

rufus-t-firefly: urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

A church isn't ever forced to marry anyone. A church can refuse to perform a marriage between two people for any reason as it is - you can't walk into a Catholic church and demand to be married if you haven't gone through whatever procedures are there. Two Christians don't automatically get a wedding at a synagogue either just because they want one.

Marriage for straight couples and civil unions for gay/lesbian couples isn't adequate. Just like "separate but equal" was not equal at all.

 

I agree. Call me stupid but I didn't know they weren't two terms for the same thing.
 
2012-12-06 02:20:24 PM

buck1138: urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Good luck getting any red state you might be traveling through to give your civil union (or gay marriage for that matter) the full faith and credit it deserves. So don't ever have to go to the hospital or expect any of the other hundred rights and privileges that are automatically granted to an opposite sex spouse.


First time a US Attorney subpoenas a hospital for possible civil rights violations after Federal level recognition of same sex marraige, such problems will go away. When faced with "you will comply or you will be siezed and liquidated to someone who will comply" the hosiptal management's direction to the staff will be "You will comply if you wish to remain employed here".

This is a total non-issue, but will suck at the time for the people that have to trigger it. Afterward not so much, they'll have plenty of money from the settlement of the lawsuits.

Let's hope that we get such federal level recognition sooner rather than later.

/You clearly do not understand how corporations make decisions
 
2012-12-06 02:21:24 PM

urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


Nobody is ever going to force a church to marry anyone - I wouldn't be cool with that either. As it happens, right now you can find churches that *will* marry gay couples. What's at issue is whether the state recognizes it. Why not to have civil unions is that they're not always equally protected under the laws of every state as marriage is. There ya have it.
 
2012-12-06 02:22:45 PM
Aren't all plasmas ionized?
 
2012-12-06 02:22:53 PM

404 page not found: YOU, MOTHERFECKER, ARE GOING TO PAY. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS THE BALL LICKER. I'M GONNA FECK YOUR MOTHER WHILE YOU WATCH AND CRY LIKE A LITTLE WHINY BŒTCH. ONCE I GET TO HOLLYWOOD AND FIND THE FECK WHO MADE THIS POST I'M GOING TO MAKE HIM EAT MY SHET AND THEN SHET OUT MY SHET AND THEN MAKE HIM EAT HIS SHET THAT'S MADE UP OF MY SHET THAT I MADE HIM EAT.



I think somebody needs a nap.
 
2012-12-06 02:22:55 PM

urbangirl: rufus-t-firefly: urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

A church isn't ever forced to marry anyone. A church can refuse to perform a marriage between two people for any reason as it is - you can't walk into a Catholic church and demand to be married if you haven't gone through whatever procedures are there. Two Christians don't automatically get a wedding at a synagogue either just because they want one.

Marriage for straight couples and civil unions for gay/lesbian couples isn't adequate. Just like "separate but equal" was not equal at all. 

I agree. Call me stupid but I didn't know they weren't two terms for the same thing.


I can't blame you, as that's the argument anti-gay marriage people push. they say marriage means one thing, and civil unions are the same union named differently, but that's really not the case.

It's just liek the 'force us to marry them' argument, it really doesn't happen in reality.

What most religious folks hate about the government recognizing same sex marriage is this: It means the government is saying, to them, their religion is wrong. They absolutely, positively, hate when the government doesn't legislate according tot heir faith, or allow things their faith says is bad.
 
2012-12-06 02:23:08 PM

St_Francis_P: The My Little Pony Killer: If you can't point to anything other than the book you pretend to read once a week, you have no point and should immediately go home and feel bad.

You're giving them way too much credit for reading anything. They get told what to think at church, and by their religious friends.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-06 02:23:20 PM

urbangirl: forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs.


Who is forcing churches to act against their beliefs in this matter?
 
2012-12-06 02:25:25 PM

urbangirl: But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.


They're different legal statuses. And even if they were identical in everything but name, we've been down the 'separate but equal' line before and established it's not acceptable. There is no reason to call out the gender matching parity of the consenting adult citizens in the legal status.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

All 'straight' folk get married in a civil ceremony, it's called signing the application for a marriage license and turning it in. The standing around and giving vows is unrelated to the legal aspect, whether you are doing it 'before god' or not.

In the eyes of the state I became married to my wife when our paperwork was completed and cleared. The fact that we stood around in fancy clothes in a winery? Irrelevant.

Likewise, in the eyes of the state her cousin became married to her husband when their paperwork was completed and cleared. The fact that they stood around in fancy clothes in a church? Irrelevant.
 
2012-12-06 02:26:38 PM

mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.


It's not entirely correct to say that the New Testament is silent on the subject of homosexuality. In Romans 1, Paul considers homosexuality a "shameful lust," which is a punishment for rejecting God.

The exact wording, as I understand it, makes allusions to pagan rituals, so some argue that the sin was actually idolatry or promiscuity. However, the best possible case you can make from the text is that Paul was not familiar with the idea of loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, not that he'd totally be okay with them if asked. 

/ I'd also take issue with "preach love" being the message of the New Testament. Probably something more like "preach love because it's a good way of making converts, and I'm coming back soon to kick the asses of anyone who isn't converted by then."
 
2012-12-06 02:27:15 PM

brigid_fitch: [images.sodahead.com image 500x536]


If you are unwilling or unable to talk to your spawn about the world they live in then don't have children.
 
2012-12-06 02:29:31 PM

urbangirl: I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


Serious question: are you stupid?
 
2012-12-06 02:32:05 PM

Jim_Callahan: Moopy Mac: "Explicitly condemn" is a bit strong, particularly with the countless different translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

That's fair on Corinthians, but there's not really any other way to read Romans.


There are a ton of places in the bible where it explicitly says that it is bad to be with women too. Let's go back to Corinthians where it's pretty explicit:

7:1 It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

7:27 Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

Christ never spoke against homosexuality, only the body hating apostles who spoke against all sexual contact in negative terms.

All Levitican/Mosaic law was allegedly replaced by Christ, not just pick and choose and is often argued. There is no textual support for that.

Additionally, Christ himself had midnight baptismals with young men, and there were early sects that took this practice to imply that Christ sanctioned more than water baptismal ceremonies. There is the famous scene in Mark 14:51-52 where a young naked boy runs out when Jesus is arrested which remained from the early expunge of references to these practices.

So anyone who really wants to study scripture as the basis of their prejudices might be careful that it may not support what they already believe.
 
2012-12-06 02:32:49 PM

kimwim: I think somebody needs a nap.


fc04.deviantart.net
 
2012-12-06 02:32:53 PM

Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Serious question: are you stupid?


You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.
 
2012-12-06 02:33:48 PM

jigger: Aren't all plasmas ionized?


Not blood plasma.
 
2012-12-06 02:35:50 PM

urbangirl: Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs.


Who says gay people won't be getting married by Justices of the Peace?
 
2012-12-06 02:36:51 PM

MadHatter500: buck1138: urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Good luck getting any red state you might be traveling through to give your civil union (or gay marriage for that matter) the full faith and credit it deserves. So don't ever have to go to the hospital or expect any of the other hundred rights and privileges that are automatically granted to an opposite sex spouse.

First time a US Attorney subpoenas a hospital for possible civil rights violations after Federal level recognition of same sex marraige, such problems will go away. When faced with "you will comply or you will be siezed and liquidated to someone who will comply" the hosiptal management's direction to the staff will be "You will comply if you wish to remain employed here".

This is a total non-issue, but will suck at the time for the people that have to trigger it. Afterward not so much, they'll have plenty of money from the settlement of the lawsuits.

Let's hope that we get such federal level recognition sooner rather than later.

/You clearly do not understand how corporations make decisions


Nice crystal ball you got there. Are these magnanimous bastards running your hypothetical hospital the same people that want to deny women employees health care that offers birth control? Yeah, corporations and business always make rational decisions. See Chick-Fil-A.
 
2012-12-06 02:37:56 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Who says gay people won't be getting married by Justices of the Peace?


Gay people will be getting married in the church I go to.
 
2012-12-06 02:38:05 PM

Martian_Astronomer: Blues_X: "These two or three pages in the Bible say it's wrong. Of course, the Bible says a lot of other things are wrong but I just ignore those parts."

Interestingly, this is one excuse that a lot of churches are giving for softening their stance on homosexuality, but it's not really surprising that the shift doesn't help their outreach too much. It's essentially moving from saying "Gheys are destroying America!!!" to saying "Hey, nobody's perfect, and we all have our sins that we struggle with. Mine is that I occasionally overeat and insult people when I get angry, yours is that your sexual identity is an abomination and every romantic relationship you've ever had has been an insult to God. Come to our church, and we'll work on our problems together!"

Amazingly, people still find fault with such magnanimity.


If that's "magnanimity", I am a tomato.

Mew.
 
2012-12-06 02:38:12 PM

urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.


You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.
 
2012-12-06 02:39:47 PM

Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.


She's still asking questions and accepting answers with an open mind. Give some credit where credit is due.
 
2012-12-06 02:40:03 PM

buck1138: MadHatter500: buck1138: urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Good luck getting any red state you might be traveling through to give your civil union (or gay marriage for that matter) the full faith and credit it deserves. So don't ever have to go to the hospital or expect any of the other hundred rights and privileges that are automatically granted to an opposite sex spouse.

First time a US Attorney subpoenas a hospital for possible civil rights violations after Federal level recognition of same sex marraige, such problems will go away. When faced with "you will comply or you will be siezed and liquidated to someone who will comply" the hosiptal management's direction to the staff will be "You will comply if you wish to remain employed here".

This is a total non-issue, but will suck at the time for the people that have to trigger it. Afterward not so much, they'll have plenty of money from the settlement of the lawsuits.

Let's hope that we get such federal level recognition sooner rather than later.

/You clearly do not understand how corporations make decisions

Nice crystal ball you got there. Are these magnanimous bastards running your hypothetical hospital the same people that want to deny women employees health care that offers birth con ...


They act predictably, especially with millions of dollars in potential lawsuits on the line.
 
2012-12-06 02:42:03 PM

Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.


So sorry to have caused such offense. How about we mutally IGNORE and then neither of us will have to be offended again.
 
2012-12-06 02:43:38 PM

Pincy: urbangirl: Neeek: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

No, equal rights is what they are looking for. Having a spouse and being married is a societal construct that people generally understand means something. Civil unions are literally an attempt to say that a same sex relationship is somehow less than a straight one.

OK i get that. so from what everyone's saying it's both a matter of legalities and social legitimacy.

It's a matter of two consenting adults of the same sex being able to have the same options available to them as two consenting adults of the opposite sex.


I would have been fine with the government getting out of the marriage business entirely and granting civil unions to any consenting adult couple (I believe some European countries do it that way).

However, you know the Fundies would scream bloody murder that they were being persecuted because the government was taking away their marriage rights.
 
2012-12-06 02:45:47 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Well, the good news for equality folks is that organized religion is a slowly dying institution amongst the youngest generations.


I don't trust our generation at all to not turn right around, and head to church the moment they get pregnant. I see that sh*t all the time: spend the late teens and twenties partying, but in the thirties it's time for kids and "Making sure they have God in their lives."

Most of the "nones" aren't atheists. They're non-practicing theists.
 
2012-12-06 02:47:25 PM

born_yesterday: Apik0r0s: PirateKing: Jim_Callahan: If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

Yeah, but that was Paul. Paul is like the Dr. Pulaski of Christianity. Showed up in season 2 with no explanation, and everyone's just supposed to ACCEPT that she's in charge of sickbay now? Who the fark are you?

My experience with Christians is that Paul is the ONLY thing in the entire Bible that thety seem to actually believe. Paul let them have shrimp on their plate, hate in their hearts and a few shekels in their pockets without all of that mushy Jesus stuff getting in the way.

Twelve apostles to choose from, and Christians go with the guy who never actually met Christ.


There were twelve disciples. Four apostles. Or at least there would be if it wasn't a fantasy novel.
 
2012-12-06 02:48:06 PM

urbangirl: I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


Is this a serious question?

Just as a test: do you believe that a nonreligious couple who should be relegated to civil unions? That is, do you think marriage should be reserved only for those willing to join under the auspices of a church, synagogue, mosque, etc.?
 
2012-12-06 02:49:46 PM

urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient?


If all of the many legal obligations and privileges of "marriage" are conferred by "civil union", then they are.

They're also exactly the same thing.

Why does there need to be another term for two identical things?

What's the difference?

(And if there is a "difference", then it's not "sufficient".)
 
2012-12-06 02:50:49 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.

She's still asking questions and accepting answers with an open mind. Give some credit where credit is due.


Well said.
And Ed Grubermann
www.patentspostgrant.com
 
2012-12-06 02:51:43 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.

She's still asking questions and accepting answers with an open mind. Give some credit where credit is due.


Just to be clear, I don't now and never have had a problem with gay marriage. This is a question I've asked gay friends from time to time and never gotten the answers I was looking for. When the topic came up here I thought I'd ask again.

Thx 4 the backup.
 
2012-12-06 02:53:18 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: I would have been fine with the government getting out of the marriage business entirely and granting civil unions to any consenting adult couple (I believe some European countries do it that way).


Ya, but seeing as "marriage" is really just a civil contract anyway, the government is already basically granting "civil unions", just not to same sex couples.
 
2012-12-06 02:55:48 PM

Jim_Callahan: The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.


But none of the Gospels, curiously enough.

So, who do you think the Disciple was, racing with Peter to see the Stone rolled away from the Tomb?

You know, "the one whom Jesus loved"? What's that all about, eh?
 
2012-12-06 02:56:26 PM
Hey you two!! 404 and Apik0r0s!!

Do ya have any idea how happy I am to pull youse guys outta my killfile!?

www.robotdancemusic.com
 
2012-12-06 02:58:12 PM

urbangirl: St_Francis_P: Huh. And here I thought they just don't like pink rainbow.




i.imgur.com

:(
 
2012-12-06 03:01:25 PM

Kittypie070: Hey you two!! 404 and Apik0r0s!!

Do ya have any idea how happy I am to pull youse guys outta my killfile!?

[www.robotdancemusic.com image 343x424]


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-06 03:03:06 PM

Apik0r0s: PirateKing: Jim_Callahan: If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

Yeah, but that was Paul. Paul is like the Dr. Pulaski of Christianity. Showed up in season 2 with no explanation, and everyone's just supposed to ACCEPT that she's in charge of sickbay now? Who the fark are you?

My experience with Christians is that Paul is the ONLY thing in the entire Bible that thety seem to actually believe. Paul let them have shrimp on their plate, hate in their hearts and a few shekels in their pockets without all of that mushy Jesus stuff getting in the way.


Dude's like the notwithstanding clause of the New Testament.
 
2012-12-06 03:03:55 PM

Pincy: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: I would have been fine with the government getting out of the marriage business entirely and granting civil unions to any consenting adult couple (I believe some European countries do it that way).

Ya, but seeing as "marriage" is really just a civil contract anyway, the government is already basically granting "civil unions", just not to same sex couples.


I was visualizing it as sort of a "grand compromise" that would get conservatives onboard. Marriage is such a loaded word that I thought replacing it with civil unions for all would garner more political support while not creating a separate but (un-)equal institution.

I was thinking it might have flown 5 or 10 years ago. Now that same-sex marriage has so much momentum it's probably and outdated idea.
 
2012-12-06 03:09:15 PM

Jim_Callahan: mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.


From the NKJV:
1 Corinthians 6:

9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,a nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:
1Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. 5Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; 7To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Desire to Visit Rome 8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers, 10making request if, by some means, now at last I may find a way in the will of God to come to you. 11For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established- 12that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. 13Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles. 14I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise. 15So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also. The Just Live by Faith 16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,a for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."a God's Wrath on Unrighteousness 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,a wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,a unmerciful; 32who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Nelson, Thomas (2009-02-18). Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV) (pp. 1092-1093). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
 
2012-12-06 03:13:19 PM
Dam and here I thought it was peanut butter and turtle farking.
 
2012-12-06 03:14:10 PM
I wonder what would happen if you gave them the same list as reasons to oppose interracial marriage, and asked the same people to comment on which reason they like the most.
 
2012-12-06 03:22:05 PM
Frankly, as a straight(ish) guy who got divorced earlier this year and am now much happier for it, I don't know why gays would want to get married. Marriage sucks (and your spouse doesn't in a straight marriage for some god damned reason).

/I understand that the package of rights that marriage entails and teh sheer number of laws is the real reason, just being facetious on fark)
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report