Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ned]

Originally posted by Firelad
There are problems with polygamy. Legal and otherwise. I like the idea of civil union for 2, marriage (considered relative) for as many as you like. Besides, solution = open marriage.
Of course, pooftie rights are taken for granted in this post.

What is your objection, firelad, to two homosexual cousins marrying, or for that matter, two siblings?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Hm,
I always thought about it as being some kind of Ritual for the couple to receive Blessings from God (or the God responsible for Fertility) to give them lots of healthy offspring.

But I agree, from the standpoint of ethology it makes more sense to assume that marriage evolved as a means to ensure that all offspring are from the same male.
After all it is one of the most important factors in the behavior of most male animals to ensure, that as much offspring as possible carry their genes.

Proteus, you seem to have fallen for the spells and propaganda of our resident communist chairman.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



No -- just you.

I hope you say that in jest?

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
What are gays doing at a site about computer gaming anyway? Here's where you belong:


http://www.literotica.com:81/forum/f...?s=&forumid=29

I like, thanks.

[Ned]

Originally posted by pchang
Marriage is religious and should stay that way. Laws should be for civil unions and should treat everyone the same. The two should not be mixed.

Separate is not equal.

Marriage long precedes religion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun


Bennie refuses to respect gays, and you refuse to respect non-bigoted religious people -- it's hard for me to pick which one is more evil.

Bennie respects gays, just not gay marriage. There is a difference that you choose to ignore.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So to respect someone, I must agree with everything they do? That's a pretty narrow definition. By that definition, I don't agree with everything Catholics do, does that mean I do not respect my girlfriend, who is a Catholic?

I have never heard you say anything about Jesus that I found to be in conflict with Catholic dogma.

So there.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned


As always, Che, you got it backwards. Ask any married man who the slave is.

I wasn't aware that we were lving under the same conditions as ten thousand years ago. Interesting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We are in Ned's family .

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not that long ago, Che. If you are referring to Christ, he's a carpenter, not a shepherd.

It starts with Abraham

No, because of the resurrection.

Which you only believe in because someone told you it happened.

After kicking the *** out of believers for 3 centuries?

Irrelevent. At the time the Christians seized control of the Empire, it was still a minority religion. It only became the majority because it outlawed all other religions. If they hadn't done that, there's a good possiblity we'd be Odinists or Wiccans or some other pagan religion.

Che, your post is internally inconsistent. You state that the outlawing of every other religion but Catholicism led to no one believing in religions other than the Catholic religion. And yet the same time you dismiss the 300 years of persecution of Christianity as being irrelevant.

[Agathon]

Ned's right on the slave thing Che. Well sometimes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then why were the Jews so agitated about the tomb?

#1, who says they were? #2, grave robbing is a serious taboo in most cultures.

Constantine was Emperor before he converted to Christianity. Ergo, Christianity has nothing to do with his control over the Empire.

Constatine was not full emperor until ater he converted. He was only co-emperor.

If this were the case, then why are we not all Christians? Just because one's parents believe does not ensure that one will personally believe.

It does in a society where conformity is enforced.

Yes, but at what cost? The Jews had to swear allegiance to Rome. The Christians refused to do so.

Then they were bad Christians. They failed to follow a direct order from Christ. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

[q]They did quite a bit more than just preserve the writings.[q/]

All of which is still irrelevent to the discussion. By the way, most fish have scales. I don't see why you can't understand that.

But the Goths and Vandals all conquered Christian areas. Why is it that the conquerers would convert to Christianity if Christianity was spread by the sword?

As I mentioned, the Goths and Vandals were already Christian when they particiapted in the conquestion of the Western Empire. The Vandals were Christian when the sacked Rome.

The pagan conquerors didn't convert immediately, but only after hundreds of years. But when their kings converted, everyone in their kingdoms was forced to convert to Christianity or be executed. Thus, Christianity was spread by the sword in those kingdoms where the King converted.

But you still must grapple with the fact of the missionaries. They are the only way a tribe will ever be converted, not through the sword.

I don't have to grapple with it at all. Missionary goes to the chief and converts him. Then the chiefs orders all his people to convert or die. The tribe is thus converted by the sword.

The Vikings kicked arse at Lindisfarne. They were not converted by force, but rather, through contact with Christians.

The Vikings were converted by order of their king, just like every other pagan nation that converted.

Rome collapsed, and converted the conquering barbarian tribes, again through contact with Christians.

Nope.

France, converted as a result of contact between the Christian parts of Europe, and Clovis and his sons. Without Clovis, you do not have a Christian France.

Exactly my point! Yet you don't understand.

England, converted to Catholicism by Irish monks. Read your history. They were Christian by the time of Bede.

And this contradicts the fact that the English kings ordered their people to convert or die how?

Germany, don't know. Have to check.

etc.

The Slavs, converted through the contact between Constantinople, and the Slavs.

etc.

Deserves another topic.

etc.

1. Canada. Converted not by force, but settled by Europeans. Europeans spread Christianity through contact with the natives, and signed treaties for the land.

Canada was conquered by the English. That's force.

2. USA. They did not spread Christianity through force, but again, settled the coast, and through Manifest Destiny spread across the west. They left very few natives to convert through Christianity.

That's spreading the religion by force.

3. Central America. In the Caribbean, they had import labour to replace the declining population.

The natives were forced to convert or die.

4. Mexico. Thought Cortez was Quetzalcoatl. Enabled him to take over the entire country. Converted many because they believed him to have the true religion.

The being murdered if they didn't convert didn't hurt his cause.

If that were so, why is it Egypt, controlled by Britain, and Libya by Italy, Algeria by France, and Morocco by Spain, why are they all Muslim countries, and not Christian?

That's a good question. Bet it wasn't for lack of trying, however.

Why is it that Americans are considered to be much more devout than the Europeans? Establishment of religion hurts the religion and the state.

The decline of religion occured, for the most part, after state religions were no longer enforced. Those countries that still enforced their state religions remained religious longer.

Pretty big exception.

We're weird.

Yet they also have to outlaw converting from Islam to Christianity. If the former were not the case, they would not need the latter.

Don't confuse today with five hundred years ago.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
And yet the same time you dismiss the 300 years of persecution of Christianity as being irrelevant.

Because the discussion is whether or not Christianity spread faster by the sword or by the pen. Thus, the persecution of the Christians by the Empire is not relevent, unless you are trying to argue, which Ben wasn't, that it might have spread faster had it not been supressed. Ben actually argues the opposite, that is spread fastest when oppressed, which is contrary to the historical record.

[CharlesBHoff]

Christian in Europe was spead by the sword especial the one who believe that God is three persons. That why they accue Islam of speading by the swors as that how Christian spead. From the beginning it was forbin to use force to convert people to Islam. It Islam have use force there wouldnot be million's of christian in the middle east left.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Because the discussion is whether or not Christianity spread faster by the sword or by the pen. Thus, the persecution of the Christians by the Empire is not relevent, unless you are trying to argue, which Ben wasn't, that it might have spread faster had it not been supressed. Ben actually argues the opposite, that is spread fastest when oppressed, which is contrary to the historical record.

No, the point I was making was that outlawing a religion, even at the pain of death, does not result in its extinction.