Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: February 3, 2025, 5:05 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Now what?
#31
Tongue 
RE: Now what?
(June 30, 2015 at 7:51 am)Drich Wrote: Tax advantages were extended to those in a government recognized civial union. If this was about taxes then brand gay marriage a gay civial union, and leave God's covenant out of it. that way they benfit from the government in the same way and the church retains the covenant it has with God.

But if you remember last election time this term 'civial union' was not acceptable. Gay people want to be 'Married" or rather they wanted the government to take that right of the church and award it to a state sanctioned civial union.

Drich, zip your fly; your ignorance is showing again. Many states prohibited enacting laws that would allow civil unions. From the Ohio amendment that banned gay marriage:
Quote:This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

The Christian religious right made civil unions unacceptable! And don't give me any of the God's covenant bullshit. Christians have been running roughshod over Matthew 19:6 for centuries. God's covenant my ass.

This information isn't hard to find and nobody's password protecting it. Of course, doing any kind of research on a subject would mean you would have to forego just making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact.
Reply
#32
RE: Now what?
It's funny that we never hear any backlash about two hetero atheists getting married in America. Or Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.
But two Christian men getting married? Unholy.

Maybe I missed it, but did any of our resident theists have anything to say when Esq. and Lucky wed?
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:

"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."

For context, this is the previous verse:

"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Reply
#33
RE: Now what?
(June 30, 2015 at 7:55 am)Drich Wrote:
(June 29, 2015 at 10:11 am)Exian Wrote: What popular TV show is normalizing incest? The two off the top of my head are Star Wars (it was a harmless kiss!) and the Old Boy remake (Elizabeth Olsen nakey Big Grin )

The only other comment I can make on that is that the front page of my fvorite porn site is always inundated with "Brother bangs sister" nonsense, but you wouldn't be frequenting any porn sites, now would ya, Drippy?

Here are over 50 examples from IMDB just from 2009 to 2010

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?keyword...ovie,short

I'm sure if you want the truth of the matter you can google it yourself.

Please tell me you combed through all these movies and found one that was praising incest. In most cases, incest in movies is overshadowed by it being rape. Or an added layer of complexity to the villain.
Reply
#34
RE: Now what?
Let me say something minor in favor of Drich.

I believe that goofy religious groups should be allowed to run their goofy religious ceremonies and rites as they please, so long as they don't harm others. As for "marriage," I have no problem if gay people want to call their civil marriage a marriage.

However, expecting a church to follow all the laws of the state I think is acting too much, and is probably unconstitutional in the US. A church shouldn't have to perform a marriage on a gay couple if it doesn't want to, for example.
Reply
#35
RE: Now what?
(June 30, 2015 at 8:38 am)Cato Wrote: Drich, zip your fly; your ignorance is showing again. Many states prohibited enacting laws that would allow civil unions. From the Ohio amendment that banned gay marriage:

This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
ROFLOL
Are you not aware of the supremecourt's decision to overturn all state banns?
Do you think the supremecourt decision would have been null and void if they used the term 'civial union' over marriage?

Maybe it is your fly that needs to be zipped if you think this.

Quote:The Christian religious right made civil unions unacceptable!
Citation?
I couldn't find anything.. matter of fact I found that there is a 600 yearold example of gay civial unions which the church did not cosponsor.

Quote:And don't give me any of the God's covenant bullshit. Christians have been running roughshod over Matthew 19:6 for centuries. God's covenant my ass.
What are you talking about? I wasn't till the last 20 years that supposed Christians have not taken marriage seriously.
Even then we still fair better than most.

Quote:This information isn't hard to find and nobody's password protecting it. Of course, doing any kind of research on a subject would mean you would have to forego just making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact.
Actually I did infact research everything I say as well as what you say sport, and can not find anything to support anything you said here off your cuff. Maybe regoup and try again. This time take the time to check the crap you try and sell with google first. Because I will, and force feed it back to you if it does not fly.
Reply
#36
RE: Now what?
(June 30, 2015 at 8:56 am)Exian Wrote: It's funny that we never hear any backlash about two hetero atheists getting married in America. Or Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.
But two Christian men getting married? Unholy.

Maybe I missed it, but did any of our resident theists have anything to say when Esq. and Lucky wed?

What you fail to comprehend is that the covenant of marriage whether in a believer's house or not is a covenant between Man woman and God. Luckie and Esq, did not change the formula, because God offers that right to them. This is made Clear in what Paul says about marriage in Cor 7 in that just because two unbellievers are married, and one find Christ He should not divorce the other for their unbelief. Why? the covenant still stands.
Reply
#37
RE: Now what?
(June 30, 2015 at 9:00 am)Exian Wrote:
(June 30, 2015 at 7:55 am)Drich Wrote: Here are over 50 examples from IMDB just from 2009 to 2010

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?keyword...ovie,short

I'm sure if you want the truth of the matter you can google it yourself.

Please tell me you combed through all these movies and found one that was praising incest. In most cases, incest in movies is overshadowed by it being rape. Or an added layer of complexity to the villain.

which would be a valid observation if in one year nearly 60 movies were not centered on this theme or this theme was not used as a driving plot devise. Again this was 2009 to 2010 the number of movies here is a list of 200+ pages of incest in TV and movies... You can't tell me that all of this incest being crept into homes and theaters is not desensitizing the general population. This is how Homosexuality became mainstream and accepted. why should we think this is not the next step into perversion 'good people' are willing to take?
Reply
#38
RE: Now what?
(June 30, 2015 at 9:03 am)bennyboy Wrote: Let me say something minor in favor of Drich.

I believe that goofy religious groups should be allowed to run their goofy religious ceremonies and rites as they please, so long as they don't harm others.  As for "marriage," I have no problem if gay people want to call their civil marriage a marriage.

However, expecting a church to follow all the laws of the state I think is acting too much, and is probably unconstitutional in the US.  A church shouldn't have to perform a marriage on a gay couple if it doesn't want to, for example.
Didn't you know the separation of Church and state only work one way in this hypocritical society. The Church is not aloowed to infringe on the state, but the state is allowed to mandate rules to the church.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...rry-gays-/
Reply
#39
RE: Now what?
(June 30, 2015 at 9:03 am)bennyboy Wrote: Let me say something minor in favor of Drich.

I believe that goofy religious groups should be allowed to run their goofy religious ceremonies and rites as they please, so long as they don't harm others. As for "marriage," I have no problem if gay people want to call their civil marriage a marriage.

However, expecting a church to follow all the laws of the state I think is acting too much, and is probably unconstitutional in the US. A church shouldn't have to perform a marriage on a gay couple if it doesn't want to, for example.

Yeah, I'm pretty certain that this is the case. Churches still aren't required to perform any marriages they don't want to, nor should they be. It's purely ceremonial from a law standpoint anyhow. I'd be very surprised if that has changed.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#40
RE: Now what?
(June 30, 2015 at 9:18 am)Drich Wrote:
(June 30, 2015 at 9:00 am)Exian Wrote: Please tell me you combed through all these movies and found one that was praising incest. In most cases, incest in movies is overshadowed by it being rape. Or an added layer of complexity to the villain.

which would be a valid observation if in one year nearly 60 movies were not centered on this theme or this theme was not used as a driving plot devise. Again this was 2009 to 2010 the number of movies here is a list of 200+ pages of incest in TV and movies... You can't tell me that all of this incest being crept into homes and theaters is not desensitizing the general population. This is how Homosexuality became mainstream and accepted. why should we think this is not the next step into perversion 'good people' are willing to take?

This is not the same. Incest is used as a plot device, because it is fascinating in the same way murder is, which we see a lot of in movies. Probably some of your favorites. Homosexuality is almost always shown in the light of the struggle or the beauty. A Single Man springs to mind.

In fact, violence and murder is glorified in some cases, which does receive it's fair share of backlash. I never see incest glorifed.

Then again, I haven't seen every Lars Von Trier movie.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  so you're in heaven now what? - coming soon so you're in hell now what v2 dyresand 8 3089 July 13, 2015 at 12:24 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Watch: now you see it, now you... Cyberman 15 5318 April 9, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Last Post: Cinjin



Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)