Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maine Christians ready to screw homosexuals...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Omni Rex Draconis
    Only from a patriarchal point of view. The children would quite clearly belong to the mother.
    We live in a patriarchal society. Decent was traced through the father in Sumeria. It was a patriarchal society.

    Marriage has never been any one thing throughout history, though for the longest period, it was a claim of ownership over the woman. In much of the world, this view still prevails. It prevailed in the United States until the 1970s. Divorce was a man's prerogative, not a woman's. We could cheat, they would be put to death for such crimes. It was slavery.

    Modern marriage is not slavery. It is not a kenel for breeding. It is an ananachronism from a less enlightened time, which we have changed and adapted. Modern marriage is not about children, or the elderly would not be allowed to wed, the infertile would not be allowed to wed. Quakers and Shakers would not be allowed to wed. And gays who adopted or had their own children would be allowed to wed.
    Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

    Comment


    • #47
      Preach on Brother che (disclaimer: this in no way means I'm becoming more of a Commie or Ted Striker-ish ).
      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

      Comment


      • #48
        Hell, even Christianity at first tried to have sexless (and thus childless) marriages.
        Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

        Comment


        • #49
          They must've spilled a lot of seed in those days...
          The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

          The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

          Comment


          • #50
            And then there were the Cathars, who believed that vaginal intercourse was a sin, and so instead had anal sex (from which the term buggery originates, as supposedly, the sect was popular among the Bulgar, aka Bougary). Thus you'd have married couples having anal sex instead of regular sex, and of course, no children would result from such.
            Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

            Comment


            • #51
              Fun Fact of the Day
              The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

              The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

              Comment


              • #52
                Depending on your definition of fun.
                Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                Comment


                • #53


                  Though Christians always have seemed to have somewhat of an anal fixation... usually against that part of the body.
                  “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                  - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    That is thrice with the "admitting my error" phrase; I have done no such thing. You are the one entering into the law profession, are you not? Debating tricks like those will serve you well, although I wish they wouldn't for such important things as legal decisons. Sigh...

                    Marriage as a political tool was founded upon the union's sanctioned generation of children. You evince this basis yourself in your text through the use of terms like "family" and "clan". The very identity of the political powers you mention are based on bloodlines!

                    So I redirect you back to my question. Why would this political action be based on the joining of a woman, who likely held no political power of her own though her family did, to a man?

                    As for sterile people, it is only recent advances in technology that has enabled us to positively identify them as such. The progression of law is usually towards the expansion, not reduction, of rights so I see no popular movement in that direction.

                    The law does demand, however, that the applicants for a marriage license not be close relatives. This makes sense in an institution founded upon the production of children. Your political definition would more often prefer the close intermarriages as a method of conserving power. Whence the discrepancy?

                    Welcome back to the debate.
                    Long live the Dead Threads!!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by chegitz guevara
                      And then there were the Cathars, who believed that vaginal intercourse was a sin, and so instead had anal sex (from which the term buggery originates, as supposedly, the sect was popular among the Bulgar, aka Bougary). Thus you'd have married couples having anal sex instead of regular sex, and of course, no children would result from such.
                      Eh, how did they procreate?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        chegitz guevara:
                        And then there were the Cathars...
                        "Marriage, baptism, and communion were not recognized as valid rituals."



                        As the man says, "Preach on Brother che".
                        Long live the Dead Threads!!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          That is thrice with the "admitting my error" phrase; I have done no such thing.


                          Of course you have. It is not my fault if you are so dense as not to see it .

                          You have said that a marriage which doesn't produce children would end a war. You've said it. What else do you need?

                          Why would this political action be based on the joining of a woman, who likely held no political power of her own though her family did, to a man?


                          Why not? That was how it worked in those days, you were a member of a clan or noble family. Joining together of two people of that group was symbolically important. It was a showing that ill will was put behind, because the families allowed a bond to be betwee them.

                          As you said (again) if they didn't have children that didn't matter. The war would not begin again if both died of old age with no child.

                          As for sterile people, it is only recent advances in technology that has enabled us to positively identify them as such. The progression of law is usually towards the expansion, not reduction, of rights so I see no popular movement in that direction.


                          OH HO! So since progression of law is to expansion of rights, sterile people cannot be denied their right to marry. Well the way I see it progression of the law is to the expansion of rights, therefore there is no reason to deny gays the right to marry.

                          The law does demand, however, that the applicants for a marriage license not be close relatives. This makes sense in an institution founded upon the production of children. Your political definition would more often prefer the close intermarriages as a method of conserving power. Whence the discrepancy?


                          Indeed, and some families, like the Hapsburgs did indeed engage in close intermarriages for that reason. For most of human history marrying your cousin was not something frowned upon. In fact, it was a good thing to marry a cousin.

                          You are backtracking. You say the law does demand non-incestuous marriages and that proves that it was for the production of children. However, in the past, marrying your relatives was not frowned upon. You could marry your cousin until marriage was changed.

                          Welcome back to the debate.


                          I've never left it, amongst your claiming victory over typos when you were shown to be entirely ignorant of the laws.
                          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Why not? That was how it worked in those days, you were a member of a clan or noble family. Joining together of two people of that group was symbolically important.
                            Doesn't answer the question. One does not get to be a member of a clan or family unless married or born into it. It is was not just two people randomly selected to for a "symbolic" joining - they were man and woman. ONCE AGAIN, I ask why?

                            Well the way I see it progression of the law is to the expansion of rights, therefore there is no reason to deny gays the right to marry.
                            Non sequitur. There is no reason to deny my right to steal and murder, because that is an expansion of my rights?

                            Your "It is not my fault if you are so dense as not to see it" appear to be in the same vein as my spelling correction and "welcome back to the debate" comments - a lighthearted jab at your opponent.

                            But "your claiming victory over typos when you were shown to be entirely ignorant of the laws" is getting very tiresome. Read what I posted, including the subsequent correction, and think on it a bit.

                            That is, of course, if you are capable of thinking...
                            Long live the Dead Threads!!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              P.S. By the way, che, regarding your thread on Ramen noodles:

                              It is spelled "favourite" or "favorite".

                              Long live the Dead Threads!!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Doesn't answer the question. One does not get to be a member of a clan or family unless married or born into it. It is was not just two people randomly selected to for a "symbolic" joining - they were man and woman. ONCE AGAIN, I ask why?


                                Because they are then linked by the act of marriage. It was not merely the joining of man and women, but the joining of families. Like YOU said, the war was over after the marriage. The war didn't restart if no children were born.

                                Non sequitur. There is no reason to deny my right to steal and murder, because that is an expansion of my rights?


                                Blundered into that one, didn't you? The right of stealing and murdering is a curtailing of someone else's rights as well as expanding yours. Whose rights are curtailed if gay's marry?

                                But "your claiming victory over typos when you were shown to be entirely ignorant of the laws" is getting very tiresome. Read what I posted, including the subsequent correction, and think on it a bit.


                                It's quite obvious that you were avoiding the fact that you were utterly wrong about the law and served to deflect that wrongness by pointing out a typo and pointing the other way... at smilies (well deserved may I add). Instead of responding, you said, haw haw, you spelt wrong! So, I think my description is apt. You don't feel the need to accept your incorrect view of how the law works, though it does show your biases very keenly.
                                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X