Oh my gosh... I was so nervous when I watched this video, okay? You have NO idea. I've ALWAYS looked up to Judge Judy. She's such a strong, independent and brave woman. To be perfectly honest, I was afraid she was against Gay marriage. THANK GOD SHE ISN'T. *Adds Judge Judy to my list of inspirational women*
As a Christian I don't understand the ignorance of these evangelical Christian folks who do gatherings like this and then focus on things like abortion and homosexuality. First off, about eight years ago while scanning radio stations I came upon Focus On The Family where the host was noting that divorce was higher amongst Christians than non-Christians. This was years before the same sex marriage laws. So blaming same sex marriage for the high divorce rates is both illiterate and disingenuous
As a Christian I don't understand the ignorance of these evangelical Christian folks who do gatherings like this and then focus on things like abortion and homosexuality. First off, about eight years ago while scanning radio stations I came upon Focus On The Family where the host was noting that divorce was higher amongst Christians than non-Christians. This was years before the same sex marriage laws. So blaming same sex marriage for the high divorce rates is both illiterate and disingenuous
@LittleMonsterNinja I'm for Gay rights, and I believe regardless of sexualities, all are broken in the sight of God. But it is through the sacrifice and love of Jesus Christ, we are able to be forgiven. Heck, even TheRawWord is also aware that he/she is immoral, and broken as a mere mortal, human being like the rest of us.
What exactly is she referring to when she says right at the end "to me, it's just plain wrong". I can't really understand! Does she mean that she believes that what happened in Arkansas is wrong, or that she thinks gay marriage is wrong?
It is the right of every consenting adult to have sex with another consenting adult, whatever their sexual orientation. No one has the right to judge or interfere. I blame religion for people's prejudice against homosexuals. Religion is a toxic virus that poisons everything.
I hope for those who hate Homosexuals or whatever, imagine raising your child, and you'd do anything to love and protect your child, would you later disown or throw out your child just because he/she merely wants to spend the rest of his/her life with somebody they love if they commit to a person of the same (or opposite) sex? Think about it, this is perhaps the person your child wants to grow old with in life. If you find out your child is Gay, don't throw him/her away, love unconditionally
Some churches in America are brainwashing that Homosexuals are incapable of LOVE and only lust. It seems to me that no matter what the facts of science and history REALLY say about homosexuality, some will still think that homosexuality is a choice and not innate. They might well be puzzled about a homosexual's reaction to the death of a partner. They might wonder if the surviving partner experiences actual grief, or merely an inconvenience while searching for a substitute. Sigh...cruel world :(
Marriage is a 100% state function.. church may perform cetemony and people may believe they are joined in god, but churches can and do refuse to do so... people get married at city halls all the.god damned time. Get over yourselves. ;)
yes, so, again, according to TheRawWord, if the majority wants segregated water fountains or schools, that's the way it should go, and too bad for the minority. F*ck the minority. So, according to TheRawWord that's how it should've gone down during the civil rights movement. Fortunately we have a constitution to protect us from people with their heads up their asses.
@dirtyfishydishcloth This is a matter of tearing something that belongs to the church and making it 100% legal. That is breaking the rights of the minority. If you want to play that game, how can you win? I guess no one has rights.
It is relevant because main religions derive their standpoints based on interpretations of these religious texts. I am assuming that neither of us has an accurate count/percentage of who is against/for homosexuality so arguments would then have to be based on intepretation of these texts (and there are arguments for both sides much like other issues like women's rights, slavery etc.)
NO! TheRawWord is right! we're a democracy, the majority can decide what the minority can & can't do! F**ck that "we are all created equal" bs. America was just kidding about that "free country" shit. And religion is right about EVERYTHING! how dare anyone questions it!? The Bible is God's perfect word....well, except for the old testament, right RawWord?
@dirtyfishydishcloth The Old Testament is legit, just not valid. It's been fulfilled. That's exactly what the New Testament states. I don't expect you to understand, your too close minded for that.
@rockubtzer Really man? Stating old covenant? Christians are not chained to Old covenant because Christ fulled it when he died on the cross. Pretty much the main reason he did it to begin with... Christians are followers of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is what defines a Christian, and separates us from the Jews.
This country is ruled by democracy. Just so happens that the people don't approve. As a matter of fact, those diverse religious beliefs ALL agree that homosexuality is wrong.
@CrimesonWitcher Buddhism is against Homosexuality. "Four Noble Truths" and the "Eight Fold Path" states this(Those are Buddhist teachings, FYI).
As for Hindu. If you were to ask them, they would tell you that they don't know. The teachings contradict each other on what is right and wrong on this subject. However, the majority are, in fact, against it.
Sir, theology is my forte. Don't try questioning me on it.
@TheRawWord Out of curiosity, I looked up the four noble truths and the eight fold paths... nothing against homosexuality there. The fact that one needs to study theology already demonstrates that religious/spiritual teachings are subject to intepretation despite its claim of absolute truth, automatically proving that religion is flawed and man-made (or those divine beings being worshipped needs to work on their communication skills... )
@Fujinokaicho That's a rather bold and naive statement. Would that mean that science is subject to interpretation? You have to study that. To study theology simply means that you have read and understand.
To someone that hasn't studied buddhism, its really hard for me to sum up what the four noble truths says on the matter. In real short summary, they believe that all unlawful acts of sexuality are wrong. They believe that homosexuality is in that because they believe anal sex is harmful.
@rithran Buddhism is against desires that could distract one from attaining enlightenment.Therefore ALL acts of sexuality falls under that category. whether it pertains to homosexuality is up for interpretation. Anal sex is possible in hetersexual relations, and is therefore not exclusive to homosexuality; lesbianism would also be excluded from that definition. and homosexuality is not just about anal sex.
@Fujinokaicho I didn't say you have to believe it, nor am I going to argue or deny that Buddhism and especially hindu is extremely up to interpretation. I will however say the the majority of Buddhists are in fact against homosexuality. Besides, I'm not talking about homosexuality so much, as I'm talking about what the definition of marriage is. In every religion it's the same.
@rithran Scientific theories are testable and changes based on the most current evidence. I would have to argue that the vast majority of theological knowledge cannot be tested therefore the neccessity of faith and hence the difference (e.g. existence of heaven/hell, existence of god, whether the bible is divinely inspired etc.)
@Fujinokaicho I suggest, if you would like a detailed explanation, find a monk. However, you are straining from the original point I was making. All main religions agree that this is wrong.
@rithran Also your main argument was that most main religions are against homosexuality. Someone mentioned buddhism and you said that buddhism was against homosexuality; I am arguing the opposite
@Fujinokaicho I think your confusing him with me. However my point was that the definition of marriage is the same in all religions. Buddhism and Hindu are not so much necessarily AGAINST homosexuality as the teachings are extremely controversial among those of their religion. It depends on what person you talk to. They do not really promote or deny, some would say. Others interpret it differently and say it does. The teachings are too easily reinterpreted due to it's lack in moral law.
@TheRawWord That's not exactly it. It is only against anything that can distract us as people from the path of enlightenment so straight sex is outlawed too according to this belief.
@CrimesonWitcher Mmmm, yes and no. UNLAWFUL straight sex. However the problem with this is that they are not exactly clear on what the heck unlawful sex is. Thus, a big controversy.
@TheRawWord "Sir, theology is my forte. Don't try questioning me on it."
Yet you still can not answer how torturing enemy troop's horses is a more effective strategy then stealing the horses, or simply mercifully killing them.
Wow. Seems you should be doing something else with your life, sir.
I don't believe in killing without a purpose, that goes for animals as well. This situation served a purpose. Horses are extremely important in war, to kill/disable them is a crushing blow to the enemy. Now and days that would probably be considered animal cruelty in the politically correct world. Back then, religious or not, a horse was merely a tool, and instrument.
If God had stated, lets make a sport where we hamstring horses and laugh at them, then I'd have a problem.
@TheRawWord Now explain how torturing the horses (a very noisy proposition, I'd imagine...) is more effective then STEALING the horses, or simply killing them (QUIETLY!).
You never have been recognized for your reading comprehension skills, have you?
@SmashtheCmachine Screaming can cause confusion and panic. Your asking me to explain a strategy that was described thousands of years ago. The bible isn't a strategy book. They don't go into intensive depth on strategic positions and attack tactics, every now and then they explain little parts of a battle that they found significant. Talk to a historian if you need to hear tactics.
@SmashtheCmachine That was a rather negligent statement. The bible holds many key geological points that hold very stable is the "real world" - for lack of a better term. Many battles in the Bible can be proven. Of course not necessarily any evidence that God had a play in them, but the battles were definitely real.
@TheRawWord "Many battles in the Bible can be proven"
That statement, used to "prove" that the entirety of the bible is correct is negligent.
MUCH great fiction has elements of fact.
Try again, and try harder. I think we've covered this before (it might have been another bible thumper, however. Either way: it is an extremely premature statement).
@SmashtheCmachine lol, what are you talking about? All I said was that these, "biblical historians" as you call them do find facts... you stated they have none. That's all I was saying. Hey, how come you haven't answered my yes or no question yet? Don't be such a party pooper! I just want to know if you approve! :(
@SmashtheCmachine lol, I'm not talking about that... I was talking about what you had said previously... whatever, got to love comment debates... As for carbon dating, you ever hear about the KFC chicken bone that dated to 1 million years? Carbon dating is flawed... They only hold onto it because historians like numbers...
@TheRawWord "Hey, how come you haven't answered my yes or no question yet?"
I told you THREE TIMES now that incest is a red herring and slippery slope argument to gay marriage, and thus: I WONT answer. Stop expecting an answer I told you I will not give. If I were to answer that question, it would still have no bearing on gay rights.
Jesus fucking christ. I've not met very many people who are as slow as you. Even still, I am going to show you the definition of these fallacies (cont)
@SmashtheCmachine Oh come on! Humor me! I swear this has nothing to do with the gay marriage thing! Is it really so hard to say yes or no? Why are you so scared to give me your opinion?
@TheRawWord (even though I have serious doubts that you can figure out WHY using those lines of "argument" are called "logical fallacies").
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening (continued)
@TheRawWord steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form: Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another
@SmashtheCmachine What? I told you that's not why. I swear this question has no point. Heck, for you, I'll even admit it! It's slippery slope! However my question isn't, because I'm not talking about Gay marriage. So give up with the whole 'Slippery slope" question as an excuse not to answer.
And it's not like ANY of this conversation we've had has anything to do with gay marriage anyway! So give up with that excuse too.
Trolling? Mmmm, maybe. I do enjoy listening to irrational anger.
@TheRawWord Well, in fairness, our recent conversation has mostly been concerning the bible. But there is a direct point to that: the buy-bull is often the #1 excuse for americans to discriminate.
Valid argument is to then undermine the buy-bull itself, if it is going to be used to attack gay folk, however.
@SmashtheCmachine Well if you want to get at that, it goes further then the Bible, this is religion in general. You know that marriage was adopted by the government from religion, right? If you stop and look at the constitution and writings of the founding fathers, you'd know that no religion can be brough above, or below another("Church of Athiesm" - for lack of a better name - is included). So for Athiests(who borrow marriage) to change the definition would be demeaning all other churches.
@TheRawWord You know that marriage was originally pagan, and yes: it DID allow gay marriage?
The puritanical "it's so icky!" morons who decided to get their panties in a twist and whine until everyone decided that beating gay people to death was just great fun.
Here's an idea: you think gay relations is so icky?
@SmashtheCmachine That is completely bogus, and you have no way of proving that. Pagans have no writings or anything. They simply have a compile of stories with no dates or geographic locations. I hate the, "everything started with pagans" crap. The pagan religion is so vague, we don't even know where it originated because they don't really document anything. We do, (on a non-christian stand-point) have reason to believe the Judeo, and even Hindu/Buddhist religions were around far before pagans.
@TheRawWord atheistforums (dot) org (slash) thread - 4065 (dot) html
I can find (MUCH) more such info. But you will plug your ears, and say that's all wrong, anyways. That's what you Christians do: you don't like hearing something, you peg it as a lie.
Fact: The bible gives no clear date of "jesus's" birthday. So why is it the 25th, specifically? Why do we chop down a tree and sit it in our home?
@TheRawWord Because the 25th was a popular "birthday" for old gods, including pagan gods.
In fact: early christians rejected the notion of the tree until later centuries.
A fact that since christians have no good answers for why they even uphold such traditions, seems to stem back to the pagan traditions and practices, now, doesn't it?
Either way... I am NOT accepting ANYTHING regarding the christian god until HE tells me.
@SmashtheCmachine lol, Christmas is a man made tradition, God doesn't even command it. Actually, originally it wasn't on the 25th. It was originally a spring holiday. No one really knows the real reason on why, but I believe they probably moved it to the 25th as a religious, "attack" on the pagan celebrations.
@SmashtheCmachine child molestation? seriously? It says molestation is a crime... why on earth do you think that it child molestation is excluded? That's like that stupid defense I always hear about how God says nothing about lesbians... like they aren't included in homosexuality...
@SmashtheCmachine God has tested one's faith with this method, but it has never been actually committed through Gods will. I can think of one time where a human sacrifice was actually completed, and God had nothing to do with that. It was simply the committed through the vanity of human nature.
Why to persist with this? You aren't getting anywhere with this. And like I said before, it's irrelevant. Marriage goes further then just Christianity.
@SmashtheCmachine Your spouting irreverence, you know that right? You believing in God is corrupt and fake doesn't change the definition of a religious custom... Like I said, it's a RELIGIOUS custom, not CHRISTIAN. Every religion has it. And every major religion has the same definition. If you change the definition of a religious term through the government, then you tear down the amendments. It's a state issue for this reason and not a Fed... because they all agree it's religious...
@SmashtheCmachine It's not a mater of what's correct and not. It's a mater of moral values, beliefs, and reason. That's what religion is. Whether it's valid or not is not isn't what determines freedom of religion. If you don't like the constitution, then I suggest moving to Canada.
@TheRawWord Actually, the bible would be the one making half truths, and isn't factually proven.
It's even been mathematically proven that the measurements given for the ark could not house 2 of every animal, let alone SEVEN of "every 'clean' animal". Try again.
@SmashtheCmachine This is because evolution was involved. Yeah, that's right. I'm a christian that believes in evolution and the big bang. I hold my sciences. I believe that every animal came from an origin species. That's been proven through science. During the time when the world was Pangaea there were less diversity of animals. When the continents split, the animals adapted. Thus resulting in mass species. Try again.
you say it's full of half truths. Factually nothing has been proven wrong
@SmashtheCmachine No, I'm admitting that there are many that say they are christian and are not. They come up with stupid interpretations. Anyone that took the time learn the ancient languages would know that these interpretations are false doctrine. Translations are subject to self interpritations, due to the fact that Greek, Latin, and Hebrew can't be perfectly translated. This is what pastors are for, to help us understand. Or for those afraid they're pastors can be flawed, learn it yourself.
@SmashtheCmachine The valid argument is that marriage is religious. Don't like that? Then get a civil union. The government can't steal a sacred ceremony.
@SmashtheCmachine "Either prove God: or find a justifiable and valid argument against gay rights."
That just came out as: "Either prove God, or allow the government to strip religious rights by letting them define who can be joined in your religious ceremonies"
@TheRawWord Well... "marriage" is either religious, in which case: fine. Don't allow gay marriage. But also strip the legal benefits from it (think about it: that would stop the ATHEISTS from marrying) ;)
Or it's a legal contract, and the church has no right sticking their noses in who marries, and we can keep the bennies.
Separation of church and state, after all.
And I would be happy with either scenario.
So you accurately summed up my argument, albeit you made every effort *cont*
@SmashtheCmachine The church has no rules that an atheist can't get married. In no religion is it stated that you have to be part of that religion to participate in it's bonding ceremony(only exception that comes to mind is Mormons... they can even deny Mormons from marriage). This is why it is recognized by the law in the first place. Because the government benefits from it, by promotion of population.
And once again, the government's solution to this has already been made, CIVIL UNION!
@TheRawWord Civil Union is not equal to that of Marriage. Civil Unions isn't recognized federally and isn't honored from state to state, only marriage.
@jusitke07 By legal terms, you're correct. However you're missing the part about statistically people with gay marriages are recognized equally with those of a civil union. Factually, married gays are denied equally to those of a civil union in terms of adoption, and other benefits. Fair? I'd say no. But that's how it is. So I'd say the real argument should be on the redefinition of Civil Union. You'd get the same effect, minus the the part that one of these options doesn't involve the church.
@jusitke07 Alright, well I'll admit, it's not an actual "Statistic". As much as it is a law issue. Gay marriages are only allowed to adopt in certain states. The same amount of states as a civil union.
@TheRawWord said, "Alright, well I'll admit, it's not an actual "Statistic". As much as it is a law issue."
I thought so.
And that's just it, Gay couples can only adopt in certain states that recognizes Civil Unions, and it's not Federally recognized. Therefore severly limiting their rights. Whereas Straight couples can adopt anywhere in the US because Marriage is recognized both on a State and Federal level.
@TheRawWord "And once again, the government's solution to this has already been made, CIVIL UNION!"
Or, more specifically: "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL!". Which, as we all know, never ends up being equal.
The church can redefine it, which lets secular people vote on it? Please explain.
"Civil union"was a joke which inspired dozens of legal loopholes that have been used to slap gay people in the face. Not a valid option.Which is why it's either religious without bennies, or legal contract with
@SmashtheCmachine Not its not a valid option because they wish to destroy religion. Go take some history courses on the constitution and you'd see why I state my arguments on how the church and secular people are connected. Although I've stated it a few times now, and don't wish to keep up the broken record business we seem to be trying to profit off of.
@TheRawWord How do they wish to destroy religion? Please, explain.
I have a greater desire to "destroy" religion, and I'm not gay. I have bore witness to far too many people being driven crazy because of religion, so I have extreme difficulty sitting idly by and letting people like the westboro rampage through society.
But this whole "gay people want to marry in order to destroy religion"... I would really love an explanation about that.
@SmashtheCmachine OH SIR! HAVE MERCY! Please please please please PLEASE! Never ever compare me to Westboro! They are extremist that spit on the Bible and not even realize it! If you compare all Christianity with them as your reasoning, then I understand why you hate my religion so much! Every scandalous accusation you've made in accordance to the christian faith is true if you use them as a source. They're nothing but hypocritical, self righteous, haters!
@SmashtheCmachine I wish they could just be modified, but that's easier said then done... It's virtually impossible to make a readable version of the Bible from the ancient tongue to English, or pretty much ever modern language. It sucks, but it's reality. The words they use are usually to general to be translated into a single English word. The best they've been able to do is have a bible with footnotes on difficultly translated words, which is actually quite helpful.
@TheRawWord *to continue* ...to put a negative spin on it.
Yes. If "marriage" is religious: then any given church should have their right to discriminate against those "filthy faggots who will burn in hell forever". But also, since we have freedom of religion: any given church who wants to marry gay folk should not be denied. But then why are we providing it legal benefits, since religion and politics should NOT mix, hmmm?
@SmashtheCmachine AND you are correct! The church does technically have the right to redefine their ceremonies(by human law). This is where the whole thing on why the state is allowed to vote on this(originally every state had it's own denomination, so by constitution the state has the right to vote on religious matters).
However, this is were the pointlessness in this comes along. The civil union already takes care of this, and the recognition of gay marriage and civil union is equal.
Like I said, the legal benefits come in because the government is run off of a General Religion(for lack of a better word) This general religion is used to establish moral law in the government. They take all moral laws that every major religion agrees with. The Church of Atheism is included as a religion, so that it's people are not demoted or raised above the others. But anyway, also like I said. The purpose of tax cuts from marriage is to promote the population of America. It's not a love tax
Real love isn't decided by taxes or marriage. Marriage is simply a bonding ceremony used to form loyalty to a partner for the benefit of reproduction, nothing more. While love is normally a standard key for marriage, it isn't required. Take arranged marriages, for instance.
You can love someone and not be married to them, so if you want to live with someone and you wish for a tax cut, then take the civil union. Why does there have to be a second compromise when there is already a first?
@TheRawWord said, I agree with you that love doesn't need marriage at all. But lets face it, there are a lot of benefits to marriage that only Straight couples in enjoy in marriage than Gay couples Civil Unions. For instance, if a Straight guy joins the military, and he's married, he then gets paid Family Separation Pay, Basic Allowance for Housing and other dependent pay. Now if a Gay guy joins the military, and is in a Civil Union, he doesn't get all that, because CU isn't Federally recognized
@TheRawWord Well the Episcopal church celebrates Gay marriage, so respect their religious rights. But Why fix Civil Unions, when we can just get rid of it or forget it? Just go directly to marriage instead, and incorporate the same rights for Gays.
@TheRawWord said, "Perhaps, and in those states that episcopals are the majority, that may pass FOR THAT STATE. This is sounding like a civil union to me..."
And that's what I'm saying. Civil Unions shouldn't be limited to a certain State with the entire USA. Which is why Civil Unions don't work at all for Gay couples. And by the way, it isn't just the Episcopal Church that celebrates Gay Marriages along with Straight Marriages, there are many other Affirming churches too
@jusitke07 You know single parents don't get family separation pay either. So I'd say this is also not a reason to change marriage, but simply redefine where that benefit belongs. That is more of a problem with their definition of "family".
@TheRawWord Don't try and change the subject. We're talking about Gay Marriage not about Single Parents. And I've seen all sorts of families in this world, including families with same sex parents. You, yourself, can't deny that same sex parents exists, because they do.
@jusitke07 What are you talking about? That's not changing the subject. That's calling your argument invalid. Single parents and gay families get the same benefit: Nothing. They call it a FAMILY pay. It's not a marriage pay, so they need to fix it.
@TheRawWord okay, so with regard to your idea of including Single Parent getting paid, what you're essentially saying is that Gay military members with dependants should stay single and never get married in order to get the dependent pay? Is that what your saying here?
@jusitke07 No I'm saying that if they wish to have a tax cut they can get a civil union, and I'm saying that the military needs to rethink what "family" means.
@TheRawWord said, "No I'm saying that if they wish to have a tax cut they can get a civil union"
OMG, I just stated that Civil Unions are not recognized in the military because it's not FEDERALLY, i say again, FEDERALLY recognized. Federally means the entire USA, and not just certain states only.
@jusitke07 And I just stated that marriage doesn't define family. That's not an issue with marriage. That's an issue with what they think a family is.
You know that in the military you are a resident of where ever you feel like and no mater where you live you are taxed by your resident state? The entire US doesn't mater. You abide by your states laws.
@TheRawWord Okay, I'm aware that everyone in the military is taxed by their resident state. But we're talking about Civil Unions which isn't recognized in the military, versus Marriage which is recognized by the military therefore subjected to all kinds of benefits paid for the every Tax paying citizen in the US, including citizens that are Homosexuals.
@jusitke07 Except they can't. Reason being is that would uphold one religion over another. Sure, the thing about the Episcopal church that you aren't recognizing is that it's a division of the church. It can only be held by the state. The founding fathers recognized that every state had it's own denomination/religion. So they realize that the conflict of upholding certain moral laws was going to be an issue that would cause one religion to be held higher then the rest. Thus, state law.
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. That came up with the Google definition. What's your point?
@TheRawWord wow, you talk as if laws can never change and are always concrete. I don't think so. And according to Merriam-Webster and other online dictionaries marriage is for both Straight couples and Gay couples
@jusitke07 Of course it does. It's called political correctness. And now where did I say that the laws are concrete? I'm stating that marriage is religious. Why do you keep accusing me of stating what I'm not stating? Am I that unclear?
@TheRawWord I agree with you, marriage is religious. So lets respect the religious rights of Churches that do celebrate Gay Marriage, shall we? Let your church and other churches not impose on each other. And forgive me if I assumed that you thought that marriage laws can't change to include Gay couples in it. My bad :(
@jusitke07 yes, all I'm stating is that in the end gay marriage is equally as flawed as civil union. The way I see it is that the only real answer is to fix what you already have, civil union. This would satisfy so many arguments I'd think.
@TheRawWord Many from the GLBT community see that Civil Unions don't work at all, and prefer to get married. And eventually have Gay Marriage Federally recognized so as not to limit Gay couples to enjoy their married life only in certain states, but in the entire US.
@jusitke07 You say that, but I hear all my gay friends talk about being rejected in their married union... The higher freedom is just as limited. The only difference is that you have to fill a form everywhere you go with a civil union.
@TheRawWord "The only difference is that you have to fill a form everywhere you go with a civil union."
Actually, it's much more dramatic then that.
Surviving members of "civil union partnerships" of a member that died has had property that they and their loved one built together seized by vindictive families.
Such people have been denied hospital visitation rights.
Separate just isn't equal. Why do you think the pro gay supporters aren't backing down, now, over this issue?
@SmashtheCmachine Well, the lovely thing is that I honestly don't believe that civil unions are a religious matter! They consider it to be so because of a minority. They are slowly but steadily raising from bad to better. I honestly believe that the fixing of civil union to work federally, would be constitutional... Perhaps I'm ignorant on some matter on it, because I can't see why that wouldn't be true. It doesn't actually raise or lower a religion above another...
You know... I've never understood this "hospital visitation rights". I used to work at a hospital in San Diego, the only people I wasn't allow to have enter to visit was if the patient wished it so. They fill a form stating if they'd like to be privately listed or not. If something drastic were to happen to them, everyone, including spouses, had to leave the room...
@jusitke07 Well, it's called secular peoples. The whole point of seculars was because there was an issue where the founding father's combination of "general religion" and freedom of religion were interfering. Each state was starting to form their own denomination. These denominations didn't 100% agree on each other's moral laws. So they decided that each state has the right to have altered moral law. Most of these can be found in the journals of the founding fathers.
@TheRawWord A simple yes or no would suffice. Are you for abolishing gov't mandated marriage laws?
I personally would like to abolish gov't mandated marriage laws, and leave that for Church affairs to deal with. Because if the gov't doesn't care to abolish marriage laws catering to Straight couples, then make it fair and include Gay couples within that marriage laws so they can access the economic benefits that comes with it.
@jusitke07 All I did was do what you told me to do... I looked up the definition online with google... it's not my fault that your attempt backfired... Besides, little thing about dictionaries: Often the definitions are different between one another. That's because some like to add political correctness... the tool of the liberal.
@jusitke07 They take the majority of dictionaries and sum them up into one online dictionary. My point was that the definition isn't the same in the political correct world.
Not to mention it would remove the part about the church attacks. Mostly, some extreme religious folk may claim that civil unions are striping our religious rights equally. But in the end they have no real way to back that up. Not even the (insert religious document here) can be support them on that.
@TheRawWord I can't figure why would religious extremist would think that other churches that celebrate Gay Marriage would strip away their religious rights as if their particular religion has the overall say in the US...that's childish thinking
@jusitke07 I never said they didn't exist. I'm saying that they've got the benefit in the wrong place. It should simply include anyone that has a second legal partner or dependent. The redefinition of marriage is unnecessary.
@TheRawWord Oh speaking of the definition of Marriage, look up the word "MARRIAGE" in any online dictionary and see if it includes same sex couples. Get back to me on that will ya, thanks.
Do you even know why the government adopted marriage in the first place? TO PROMOTE POPULATION OF THE HUMAN RACE! That's it! With that said, why should gays get that? Should a bad driver get the same benefits on their insurance as a good driver? Should a thief get the same time as a murderer? Just because someone doesn't have things in an equal share, doesn't mean they are being torn of their rights!
You can say that gays can still adopt, but that's a tax cut of a different color.
@TheRawWord Religion: making good people do evil things for centuries. You do know that the bible was used in order to undermine black folk's rights, I hope.
Or do you simply plug your ears and go "LALALALA" with regards to that fact, too?
Gay marriage is going the same rout: people like me do not approve of religious loonies telling us who we should hate (and never providing any concrete reason why we should hate them).
@SmashtheCmachine Oh yes, I know. The bible has been abused through history. The human nature is to seek power. Just because someone says they're christian doesn't make it so. After all, Christ says there is only one race. For someone to try to twist what it says through poor translation is the true evil. We are to avoid the wolfs dressed in sheep's clothing. And no, it is irrelevant. The government doesn't have the right to change the definition of a religious tradition.
@SmashtheCmachine Lol, this is a silly statement. I can name countless people in history that were not religious and still did evil things. That's human nature, not religion.
@TheRawWord Did I say non-religious people can not do evil deeds? Noooo...
I said "religion: making GOOD people do evil deeds".
Please at least get the quote accurate.
"Well to be completely fair, you've through quite a few negative punches yourself. :P"
Usually, the "to be fair" is a statement of ones OWN guilt. But heedless of that technicality: I fess up to it. However: I make a statement regarding the atrocities endorsed by the bible: THEN I back it up with BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE.
@SmashtheCmachine Yeah, I've added a negative twist to this and that. You're uneducated accusations of the bible are irrelevant to this issue. Just because you feel the bible is evil doesn't give you the right to stripe the freedom of religion.
And are you stating that non religious people are just evil and not good? Because I was stating we're all equal in our evils.
@TheRawWord Uneducated about the bible? I have directly quoted several passages in the bible, and have been taking time each day to further educate myself about it.
Never have seen any direct biblical lit. from you, only justification on why the bible suggests to people to do horrendously evil and immoral deeds.
@SmashtheCmachine Lol, if you want to quote the Bible to me and call it evil, I suggest you do the quoting in the ancient tongues. That and state which translation you are quoting, because so many times you come up with accusations that are the opposite of what it's stated. I also suggest if you want to state the irrelevant laws of the old testament, that you first learn the customs of ancient times. Your "evil" that you keep finding tends to be covered in a politically correct blanket.
@TheRawWord "But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death"
Not much room for confusion, there. Maybe the error is in the english translations, and it's up to the biblical scholors to fix it, hmmm?
@TheRawWord And I do apologize I seemed to be "lashing out at" you. It's nothing personal. I just stopped letting people use personal beliefs to trample all over my own and other people's rights.
So yes: I will be tough on you, as an advocate for this book.
A book that says women should marry rapist: (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
Under penalty of death for marrying anyone else: (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
@SmashtheCmachine The penalty of death is complicated. I could write a novel on why this is so. However, it is no more the moment that Jesus died on the cross. Short story: The people that defied God's law were put to death and sadly sent to hell. However, Christ died as an perfect man. This is the sacrifice that nullified the old covenant. Jesus descended to hell, preached the new covenant to the prisoners of hell and even they were saved.
Secondly, and according to the ancient language, rape isn't accurate. The greek words being translated to "rape" is: Taphas: to lay hold of, or to grasp. Simply a gross misinterpretation.
And Sakab: To lay with.
This is what I mean by uneducated. If you ever have an issue with a translation, I'd suggest talking to a pastor. They're trained in the ancient languages. Or be like me and learn them yourself.
@TheRawWord Then crack down on your biblical scholars to rewrite it, then. If you guys don't like being misconstrued, then update your bible to edit out these "errors"
Oh my gosh... I was so nervous when I watched this video, okay? You have NO idea. I've ALWAYS looked up to Judge Judy. She's such a strong, independent and brave woman. To be perfectly honest, I was afraid she was against Gay marriage. THANK GOD SHE ISN'T. *Adds Judge Judy to my list of inspirational women*
DillyWilly11111 1 week ago
I always liked you Judge Judy, now I love you! You are SMART!
Missytrilakes 1 week ago
@Missytrilakes funny , i thought she was smart , now i know for a fact she is a fag enabler
saintfredphelps2 2 days ago
@saintfredphelps2 yes she has how wonderful! I pray you dont burn in hell!
Missytrilakes 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a Christian I don't understand the ignorance of these evangelical Christian folks who do gatherings like this and then focus on things like abortion and homosexuality. First off, about eight years ago while scanning radio stations I came upon Focus On The Family where the host was noting that divorce was higher amongst Christians than non-Christians. This was years before the same sex marriage laws. So blaming same sex marriage for the high divorce rates is both illiterate and disingenuous
Missytrilakes 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a Christian I don't understand the ignorance of these evangelical Christian folks who do gatherings like this and then focus on things like abortion and homosexuality. First off, about eight years ago while scanning radio stations I came upon Focus On The Family where the host was noting that divorce was higher amongst Christians than non-Christians. This was years before the same sex marriage laws. So blaming same sex marriage for the high divorce rates is both illiterate and disingenuous
Missytrilakes 1 week ago
love the face she makes at the very end
chainedtotheworld 2 weeks ago
@jusitke07 No offense, but you Christians are really depressing. Why not liven up a little and just enjoy life? :/
Jaws1009 2 weeks ago
@jusitke07
I am bisexual. I am a Christian. I am not immoral, and I am not broken. I can do everything a straight person can. You're ignorant.
LittleMonsterNinja 2 weeks ago 2
@LittleMonsterNinja I'm for Gay rights, and I believe regardless of sexualities, all are broken in the sight of God. But it is through the sacrifice and love of Jesus Christ, we are able to be forgiven. Heck, even TheRawWord is also aware that he/she is immoral, and broken as a mere mortal, human being like the rest of us.
jusitke07 2 weeks ago
@LittleMonsterNinja Hypocrite
Dibby59 1 week ago
What exactly is she referring to when she says right at the end "to me, it's just plain wrong". I can't really understand! Does she mean that she believes that what happened in Arkansas is wrong, or that she thinks gay marriage is wrong?
JYCrazy1 3 weeks ago
It is the right of every consenting adult to have sex with another consenting adult, whatever their sexual orientation. No one has the right to judge or interfere. I blame religion for people's prejudice against homosexuals. Religion is a toxic virus that poisons everything.
roac7777 3 weeks ago
I hope for those who hate Homosexuals or whatever, imagine raising your child, and you'd do anything to love and protect your child, would you later disown or throw out your child just because he/she merely wants to spend the rest of his/her life with somebody they love if they commit to a person of the same (or opposite) sex? Think about it, this is perhaps the person your child wants to grow old with in life. If you find out your child is Gay, don't throw him/her away, love unconditionally
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
Some churches in America are brainwashing that Homosexuals are incapable of LOVE and only lust. It seems to me that no matter what the facts of science and history REALLY say about homosexuality, some will still think that homosexuality is a choice and not innate. They might well be puzzled about a homosexual's reaction to the death of a partner. They might wonder if the surviving partner experiences actual grief, or merely an inconvenience while searching for a substitute. Sigh...cruel world :(
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'll watch it, if you watch these. First, this is the biology of the human sexuality (Hetero, Bi, Homo), especially in this case, Homosexuality
watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA
And here is the CBS News magazine 60 Minute Gay Story, that explains that seuxality can't be chosen which comes in two parts
watch?v=fOO1Y4OryWY&feature=ch annel_page
watch?v=FYEJpcAHz5k&feature=ch annel_page
God created not just Straight people, he created them all
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
....therefore a Gay couples in the military, can't get tax cuts in the military
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
What a boss!! :)
Perezleo2367 1 month ago
Judge Judy just got WAY more amazing.
queencolondarkwing 1 month ago in playlist Watch Later Playlist
YOU TELL EM' JUDY XD
amandap3989 1 month ago 2
Marriage is a 100% state function.. church may perform cetemony and people may believe they are joined in god, but churches can and do refuse to do so... people get married at city halls all the.god damned time. Get over yourselves. ;)
Polaris104 1 month ago
yes, so, again, according to TheRawWord, if the majority wants segregated water fountains or schools, that's the way it should go, and too bad for the minority. F*ck the minority. So, according to TheRawWord that's how it should've gone down during the civil rights movement. Fortunately we have a constitution to protect us from people with their heads up their asses.
dirtyfishydishcloth 1 month ago
@dirtyfishydishcloth This is a matter of tearing something that belongs to the church and making it 100% legal. That is breaking the rights of the minority. If you want to play that game, how can you win? I guess no one has rights.
rithran 1 month ago
It is relevant because main religions derive their standpoints based on interpretations of these religious texts. I am assuming that neither of us has an accurate count/percentage of who is against/for homosexuality so arguments would then have to be based on intepretation of these texts (and there are arguments for both sides much like other issues like women's rights, slavery etc.)
Fujinokaicho 1 month ago
NO! TheRawWord is right! we're a democracy, the majority can decide what the minority can & can't do! F**ck that "we are all created equal" bs. America was just kidding about that "free country" shit. And religion is right about EVERYTHING! how dare anyone questions it!? The Bible is God's perfect word....well, except for the old testament, right RawWord?
dirtyfishydishcloth 1 month ago
@dirtyfishydishcloth This is because it is literally impossible to please a crowd. There are tooooo many differences in beliefs, and right/wrongs.
rithran 1 month ago
@dirtyfishydishcloth The Old Testament is legit, just not valid. It's been fulfilled. That's exactly what the New Testament states. I don't expect you to understand, your too close minded for that.
rithran 1 month ago
freedom and liberty for all point blank period
Steadno 1 month ago
Just because their religion says so, doesn't mean you have to respect it.
MaMastoast 1 month ago
@rockubtzer Really man? Stating old covenant? Christians are not chained to Old covenant because Christ fulled it when he died on the cross. Pretty much the main reason he did it to begin with... Christians are followers of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is what defines a Christian, and separates us from the Jews.
This country is ruled by democracy. Just so happens that the people don't approve. As a matter of fact, those diverse religious beliefs ALL agree that homosexuality is wrong.
TheRawWord 1 month ago
@TheRawWord fulfilled*
TheRawWord 1 month ago
@TheRawWord ALL OF THEM? BULLSHIT! Have you asked the Buddhist or the Hindu what they think? Where are you getting your info from?
CrimesonWitcher 1 month ago
@CrimesonWitcher Buddhism is against Homosexuality. "Four Noble Truths" and the "Eight Fold Path" states this(Those are Buddhist teachings, FYI).
As for Hindu. If you were to ask them, they would tell you that they don't know. The teachings contradict each other on what is right and wrong on this subject. However, the majority are, in fact, against it.
Sir, theology is my forte. Don't try questioning me on it.
TheRawWord 1 month ago
@TheRawWord Out of curiosity, I looked up the four noble truths and the eight fold paths... nothing against homosexuality there. The fact that one needs to study theology already demonstrates that religious/spiritual teachings are subject to intepretation despite its claim of absolute truth, automatically proving that religion is flawed and man-made (or those divine beings being worshipped needs to work on their communication skills... )
Fujinokaicho 1 month ago
@Fujinokaicho That's a rather bold and naive statement. Would that mean that science is subject to interpretation? You have to study that. To study theology simply means that you have read and understand.
To someone that hasn't studied buddhism, its really hard for me to sum up what the four noble truths says on the matter. In real short summary, they believe that all unlawful acts of sexuality are wrong. They believe that homosexuality is in that because they believe anal sex is harmful.
rithran 1 month ago
@rithran Buddhism is against desires that could distract one from attaining enlightenment.Therefore ALL acts of sexuality falls under that category. whether it pertains to homosexuality is up for interpretation. Anal sex is possible in hetersexual relations, and is therefore not exclusive to homosexuality; lesbianism would also be excluded from that definition. and homosexuality is not just about anal sex.
Fujinokaicho 1 month ago
@Fujinokaicho I didn't say you have to believe it, nor am I going to argue or deny that Buddhism and especially hindu is extremely up to interpretation. I will however say the the majority of Buddhists are in fact against homosexuality. Besides, I'm not talking about homosexuality so much, as I'm talking about what the definition of marriage is. In every religion it's the same.
rithran 1 month ago
@rithran Scientific theories are testable and changes based on the most current evidence. I would have to argue that the vast majority of theological knowledge cannot be tested therefore the neccessity of faith and hence the difference (e.g. existence of heaven/hell, existence of god, whether the bible is divinely inspired etc.)
Fujinokaicho 1 month ago
@Fujinokaicho I suggest, if you would like a detailed explanation, find a monk. However, you are straining from the original point I was making. All main religions agree that this is wrong.
rithran 1 month ago
@rithran Also your main argument was that most main religions are against homosexuality. Someone mentioned buddhism and you said that buddhism was against homosexuality; I am arguing the opposite
Fujinokaicho 1 month ago
@Fujinokaicho I think your confusing him with me. However my point was that the definition of marriage is the same in all religions. Buddhism and Hindu are not so much necessarily AGAINST homosexuality as the teachings are extremely controversial among those of their religion. It depends on what person you talk to. They do not really promote or deny, some would say. Others interpret it differently and say it does. The teachings are too easily reinterpreted due to it's lack in moral law.
TheRawWord 1 month ago
@rithran This is right and wrong. Homosexuality in general is rather controversal of a topic in the non-judeo faiths.
TheRawWord 1 month ago
@Fujinokaicho Thanks for backing me up on that. I was just about to admit defeat on that one.
CrimesonWitcher 1 month ago
@CrimesonWitcher You can still do so if you choose. :P
TheRawWord 1 month ago
@TheRawWord That's not exactly it. It is only against anything that can distract us as people from the path of enlightenment so straight sex is outlawed too according to this belief.
CrimesonWitcher 1 month ago
@CrimesonWitcher Mmmm, yes and no. UNLAWFUL straight sex. However the problem with this is that they are not exactly clear on what the heck unlawful sex is. Thus, a big controversy.
TheRawWord 1 month ago
@TheRawWord "Sir, theology is my forte. Don't try questioning me on it."
Yet you still can not answer how torturing enemy troop's horses is a more effective strategy then stealing the horses, or simply mercifully killing them.
Wow. Seems you should be doing something else with your life, sir.
SmashtheCmachine 4 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Human life over animal. Simple as that. I don't dwell hard on the old testament. The old testament isn't what saves you.
TheRawWord 4 weeks ago
I don't believe in killing without a purpose, that goes for animals as well. This situation served a purpose. Horses are extremely important in war, to kill/disable them is a crushing blow to the enemy. Now and days that would probably be considered animal cruelty in the politically correct world. Back then, religious or not, a horse was merely a tool, and instrument.
If God had stated, lets make a sport where we hamstring horses and laugh at them, then I'd have a problem.
TheRawWord 4 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Now explain how torturing the horses (a very noisy proposition, I'd imagine...) is more effective then STEALING the horses, or simply killing them (QUIETLY!).
You never have been recognized for your reading comprehension skills, have you?
SmashtheCmachine 4 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Screaming can cause confusion and panic. Your asking me to explain a strategy that was described thousands of years ago. The bible isn't a strategy book. They don't go into intensive depth on strategic positions and attack tactics, every now and then they explain little parts of a battle that they found significant. Talk to a historian if you need to hear tactics.
TheRawWord 4 weeks ago
@TheRawWord "The bible isn't a strategy book. They don't go into intensive depth on strategic positions and attack tactics"
Obviously.
"Talk to a historian if you need to hear tactics"
I presume you mean a "BIBLICAL historian".
Not quite the same thing as a historian who supports fact.
SmashtheCmachine 4 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine That was a rather negligent statement. The bible holds many key geological points that hold very stable is the "real world" - for lack of a better term. Many battles in the Bible can be proven. Of course not necessarily any evidence that God had a play in them, but the battles were definitely real.
TheRawWord 4 weeks ago
@TheRawWord "Many battles in the Bible can be proven"
That statement, used to "prove" that the entirety of the bible is correct is negligent.
MUCH great fiction has elements of fact.
Try again, and try harder. I think we've covered this before (it might have been another bible thumper, however. Either way: it is an extremely premature statement).
SmashtheCmachine 4 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine lol, what are you talking about? All I said was that these, "biblical historians" as you call them do find facts... you stated they have none. That's all I was saying. Hey, how come you haven't answered my yes or no question yet? Don't be such a party pooper! I just want to know if you approve! :(
TheRawWord 4 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Noooo...
Learn some reading comprehension skills, christ. I clarified what I was saying with one statement: "MUCH great fiction has elements of fact".
I can very easily take a real situation, and write complete bullshit into it.
And modern information (carbon dating) PROVE the bible's little "timeline" is hogwash.
Get a clue. Your ignorance is embarrassing.
However, I do enjoy seeing you make a fool of yourself :)
SmashtheCmachine 4 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine lol, I'm not talking about that... I was talking about what you had said previously... whatever, got to love comment debates... As for carbon dating, you ever hear about the KFC chicken bone that dated to 1 million years? Carbon dating is flawed... They only hold onto it because historians like numbers...
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord "Hey, how come you haven't answered my yes or no question yet?"
I told you THREE TIMES now that incest is a red herring and slippery slope argument to gay marriage, and thus: I WONT answer. Stop expecting an answer I told you I will not give. If I were to answer that question, it would still have no bearing on gay rights.
Jesus fucking christ. I've not met very many people who are as slow as you. Even still, I am going to show you the definition of these fallacies (cont)
SmashtheCmachine 4 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Oh come on! Humor me! I swear this has nothing to do with the gay marriage thing! Is it really so hard to say yes or no? Why are you so scared to give me your opinion?
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord (even though I have serious doubts that you can figure out WHY using those lines of "argument" are called "logical fallacies").
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening (continued)
SmashtheCmachine 4 weeks ago
@TheRawWord steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form: Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another
SmashtheCmachine 4 weeks ago
@TheRawWord THAT is the primary reason I refuse to answer that stupid question of yours.
To drill the point home:
IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE INCEST, STOP TRYING TO SLIPPERY SLOPE IT OFF OF GAY RIGHTS.
Moron.
Now, on to explain red herring fallacy (I sincerely hope you're simply trolling... seriously, NO ONE can be as ignorant as you have been, today).
SmashtheCmachine 4 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine What? I told you that's not why. I swear this question has no point. Heck, for you, I'll even admit it! It's slippery slope! However my question isn't, because I'm not talking about Gay marriage. So give up with the whole 'Slippery slope" question as an excuse not to answer.
And it's not like ANY of this conversation we've had has anything to do with gay marriage anyway! So give up with that excuse too.
Trolling? Mmmm, maybe. I do enjoy listening to irrational anger.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Well, in fairness, our recent conversation has mostly been concerning the bible. But there is a direct point to that: the buy-bull is often the #1 excuse for americans to discriminate.
Valid argument is to then undermine the buy-bull itself, if it is going to be used to attack gay folk, however.
So it's still relevant, unlike your question.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Well if you want to get at that, it goes further then the Bible, this is religion in general. You know that marriage was adopted by the government from religion, right? If you stop and look at the constitution and writings of the founding fathers, you'd know that no religion can be brough above, or below another("Church of Athiesm" - for lack of a better name - is included). So for Athiests(who borrow marriage) to change the definition would be demeaning all other churches.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord You know that marriage was originally pagan, and yes: it DID allow gay marriage?
The puritanical "it's so icky!" morons who decided to get their panties in a twist and whine until everyone decided that beating gay people to death was just great fun.
Here's an idea: you think gay relations is so icky?
Don't go fucking other guys.
OMG, that's just too simple... *shock*
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine That is completely bogus, and you have no way of proving that. Pagans have no writings or anything. They simply have a compile of stories with no dates or geographic locations. I hate the, "everything started with pagans" crap. The pagan religion is so vague, we don't even know where it originated because they don't really document anything. We do, (on a non-christian stand-point) have reason to believe the Judeo, and even Hindu/Buddhist religions were around far before pagans.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord atheistforums (dot) org (slash) thread - 4065 (dot) html
I can find (MUCH) more such info. But you will plug your ears, and say that's all wrong, anyways. That's what you Christians do: you don't like hearing something, you peg it as a lie.
Fact: The bible gives no clear date of "jesus's" birthday. So why is it the 25th, specifically? Why do we chop down a tree and sit it in our home?
Answer: *continued*
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Because the 25th was a popular "birthday" for old gods, including pagan gods.
In fact: early christians rejected the notion of the tree until later centuries.
A fact that since christians have no good answers for why they even uphold such traditions, seems to stem back to the pagan traditions and practices, now, doesn't it?
Either way... I am NOT accepting ANYTHING regarding the christian god until HE tells me.
You want to blindly and naively believe? Fine.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine lol, Christmas is a man made tradition, God doesn't even command it. Actually, originally it wasn't on the 25th. It was originally a spring holiday. No one really knows the real reason on why, but I believe they probably moved it to the 25th as a religious, "attack" on the pagan celebrations.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord However, maybe you should check out the website "Why wont god heal amputees".
Either way, I wont stop using the bible in order to undermine it.
The bible is the greatest weapon to itself.
By the way: according to the bible, gays are so horrible, yes?
Why does it say NOTHING about child molestation, hmmm?
Really. Think about this shit. Fanatical frenzy is holding us ALL back.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine child molestation? seriously? It says molestation is a crime... why on earth do you think that it child molestation is excluded? That's like that stupid defense I always hear about how God says nothing about lesbians... like they aren't included in homosexuality...
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord I have yet to read that in the bible... eith way, it sure seems that human sacrifice of your children is okay ;)
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine God has tested one's faith with this method, but it has never been actually committed through Gods will. I can think of one time where a human sacrifice was actually completed, and God had nothing to do with that. It was simply the committed through the vanity of human nature.
Why to persist with this? You aren't getting anywhere with this. And like I said before, it's irrelevant. Marriage goes further then just Christianity.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Your spouting irreverence, you know that right? You believing in God is corrupt and fake doesn't change the definition of a religious custom... Like I said, it's a RELIGIOUS custom, not CHRISTIAN. Every religion has it. And every major religion has the same definition. If you change the definition of a religious term through the government, then you tear down the amendments. It's a state issue for this reason and not a Fed... because they all agree it's religious...
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord No: I am undermining the validity of religion. I know very well that the great majority of religions have similar customs.
That tends to happen when new faiths pop up, and are in need of validation. So they piggyback themselves on older faiths and traditions.
Save for christianity, which originally rejected those traditions, then adopted them a century or two later.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine It's not a mater of what's correct and not. It's a mater of moral values, beliefs, and reason. That's what religion is. Whether it's valid or not is not isn't what determines freedom of religion. If you don't like the constitution, then I suggest moving to Canada.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
You make a lot of claims that can't be factually proven. Or claims that are half truths...
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Actually, the bible would be the one making half truths, and isn't factually proven.
It's even been mathematically proven that the measurements given for the ark could not house 2 of every animal, let alone SEVEN of "every 'clean' animal". Try again.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine This is because evolution was involved. Yeah, that's right. I'm a christian that believes in evolution and the big bang. I hold my sciences. I believe that every animal came from an origin species. That's been proven through science. During the time when the world was Pangaea there were less diversity of animals. When the continents split, the animals adapted. Thus resulting in mass species. Try again.
you say it's full of half truths. Factually nothing has been proven wrong
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord So you freely admit that you believe something that your own faith directly contradicts...?
How is that working out for you?
And if that is the case, how can you be sure of ANY of the written texts in the bible, if science itself directly counters biblical scripture?
Not to be demeaning, but I am genuinely curious about this.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine No, I'm admitting that there are many that say they are christian and are not. They come up with stupid interpretations. Anyone that took the time learn the ancient languages would know that these interpretations are false doctrine. Translations are subject to self interpritations, due to the fact that Greek, Latin, and Hebrew can't be perfectly translated. This is what pastors are for, to help us understand. Or for those afraid they're pastors can be flawed, learn it yourself.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord (Besides: the Burden of Proof is on YOU for asserting that everyone should follow your favorite BOOK'S homophobic standards.
Either prove god: or find a justifiable and valid argument against gay rights.
It's as simple as that.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine The valid argument is that marriage is religious. Don't like that? Then get a civil union. The government can't steal a sacred ceremony.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine "Either prove God: or find a justifiable and valid argument against gay rights."
That just came out as: "Either prove God, or allow the government to strip religious rights by letting them define who can be joined in your religious ceremonies"
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Well... "marriage" is either religious, in which case: fine. Don't allow gay marriage. But also strip the legal benefits from it (think about it: that would stop the ATHEISTS from marrying) ;)
Or it's a legal contract, and the church has no right sticking their noses in who marries, and we can keep the bennies.
Separation of church and state, after all.
And I would be happy with either scenario.
So you accurately summed up my argument, albeit you made every effort *cont*
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine The church has no rules that an atheist can't get married. In no religion is it stated that you have to be part of that religion to participate in it's bonding ceremony(only exception that comes to mind is Mormons... they can even deny Mormons from marriage). This is why it is recognized by the law in the first place. Because the government benefits from it, by promotion of population.
And once again, the government's solution to this has already been made, CIVIL UNION!
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Civil Union is not equal to that of Marriage. Civil Unions isn't recognized federally and isn't honored from state to state, only marriage.
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 By legal terms, you're correct. However you're missing the part about statistically people with gay marriages are recognized equally with those of a civil union. Factually, married gays are denied equally to those of a civil union in terms of adoption, and other benefits. Fair? I'd say no. But that's how it is. So I'd say the real argument should be on the redefinition of Civil Union. You'd get the same effect, minus the the part that one of these options doesn't involve the church.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord show me where did you get this "statistics"....
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 Alright, well I'll admit, it's not an actual "Statistic". As much as it is a law issue. Gay marriages are only allowed to adopt in certain states. The same amount of states as a civil union.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRawWord said, "Alright, well I'll admit, it's not an actual "Statistic". As much as it is a law issue."
I thought so.
And that's just it, Gay couples can only adopt in certain states that recognizes Civil Unions, and it's not Federally recognized. Therefore severly limiting their rights. Whereas Straight couples can adopt anywhere in the US because Marriage is recognized both on a State and Federal level.
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
Correction: there are more states that allow adoption through civil union, then gay marriage. Fun Fact of the day.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord "And once again, the government's solution to this has already been made, CIVIL UNION!"
Or, more specifically: "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL!". Which, as we all know, never ends up being equal.
The church can redefine it, which lets secular people vote on it? Please explain.
"Civil union"was a joke which inspired dozens of legal loopholes that have been used to slap gay people in the face. Not a valid option.Which is why it's either religious without bennies, or legal contract with
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Not its not a valid option because they wish to destroy religion. Go take some history courses on the constitution and you'd see why I state my arguments on how the church and secular people are connected. Although I've stated it a few times now, and don't wish to keep up the broken record business we seem to be trying to profit off of.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord How do they wish to destroy religion? Please, explain.
I have a greater desire to "destroy" religion, and I'm not gay. I have bore witness to far too many people being driven crazy because of religion, so I have extreme difficulty sitting idly by and letting people like the westboro rampage through society.
But this whole "gay people want to marry in order to destroy religion"... I would really love an explanation about that.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine OH SIR! HAVE MERCY! Please please please please PLEASE! Never ever compare me to Westboro! They are extremist that spit on the Bible and not even realize it! If you compare all Christianity with them as your reasoning, then I understand why you hate my religion so much! Every scandalous accusation you've made in accordance to the christian faith is true if you use them as a source. They're nothing but hypocritical, self righteous, haters!
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord I am not comparing you to the westboro. Hold your horses.
I freely admit they are an extremist example. However: they suggest they follow the same faith...
By the way: my citations from the bible were NOT altered, and to totally undercut any ideas of "rationalization".
I stated direct quotes, as they stand.
Maybe if that's not what they meant... they should be modified to avoid confusion...?
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine I wish they could just be modified, but that's easier said then done... It's virtually impossible to make a readable version of the Bible from the ancient tongue to English, or pretty much ever modern language. It sucks, but it's reality. The words they use are usually to general to be translated into a single English word. The best they've been able to do is have a bible with footnotes on difficultly translated words, which is actually quite helpful.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord *to continue* ...to put a negative spin on it.
Yes. If "marriage" is religious: then any given church should have their right to discriminate against those "filthy faggots who will burn in hell forever". But also, since we have freedom of religion: any given church who wants to marry gay folk should not be denied. But then why are we providing it legal benefits, since religion and politics should NOT mix, hmmm?
You guys can not have your cake, and eat it too.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine AND you are correct! The church does technically have the right to redefine their ceremonies(by human law). This is where the whole thing on why the state is allowed to vote on this(originally every state had it's own denomination, so by constitution the state has the right to vote on religious matters).
However, this is were the pointlessness in this comes along. The civil union already takes care of this, and the recognition of gay marriage and civil union is equal.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
Like I said, the legal benefits come in because the government is run off of a General Religion(for lack of a better word) This general religion is used to establish moral law in the government. They take all moral laws that every major religion agrees with. The Church of Atheism is included as a religion, so that it's people are not demoted or raised above the others. But anyway, also like I said. The purpose of tax cuts from marriage is to promote the population of America. It's not a love tax
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
Real love isn't decided by taxes or marriage. Marriage is simply a bonding ceremony used to form loyalty to a partner for the benefit of reproduction, nothing more. While love is normally a standard key for marriage, it isn't required. Take arranged marriages, for instance.
You can love someone and not be married to them, so if you want to live with someone and you wish for a tax cut, then take the civil union. Why does there have to be a second compromise when there is already a first?
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord said, I agree with you that love doesn't need marriage at all. But lets face it, there are a lot of benefits to marriage that only Straight couples in enjoy in marriage than Gay couples Civil Unions. For instance, if a Straight guy joins the military, and he's married, he then gets paid Family Separation Pay, Basic Allowance for Housing and other dependent pay. Now if a Gay guy joins the military, and is in a Civil Union, he doesn't get all that, because CU isn't Federally recognized
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 Like I said, this is an issue with civil union, not marriage. You don't like civil union? fix it! Don't touch our religious rights!
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Well the Episcopal church celebrates Gay marriage, so respect their religious rights. But Why fix Civil Unions, when we can just get rid of it or forget it? Just go directly to marriage instead, and incorporate the same rights for Gays.
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 Perhaps, and in those states that episcopals are the majority, that may pass FOR THAT STATE. This is sounding like a civil union to me...
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRawWord said, "Perhaps, and in those states that episcopals are the majority, that may pass FOR THAT STATE. This is sounding like a civil union to me..."
And that's what I'm saying. Civil Unions shouldn't be limited to a certain State with the entire USA. Which is why Civil Unions don't work at all for Gay couples. And by the way, it isn't just the Episcopal Church that celebrates Gay Marriages along with Straight Marriages, there are many other Affirming churches too
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 You know single parents don't get family separation pay either. So I'd say this is also not a reason to change marriage, but simply redefine where that benefit belongs. That is more of a problem with their definition of "family".
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Don't try and change the subject. We're talking about Gay Marriage not about Single Parents. And I've seen all sorts of families in this world, including families with same sex parents. You, yourself, can't deny that same sex parents exists, because they do.
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 What are you talking about? That's not changing the subject. That's calling your argument invalid. Single parents and gay families get the same benefit: Nothing. They call it a FAMILY pay. It's not a marriage pay, so they need to fix it.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord okay, so with regard to your idea of including Single Parent getting paid, what you're essentially saying is that Gay military members with dependants should stay single and never get married in order to get the dependent pay? Is that what your saying here?
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 No I'm saying that if they wish to have a tax cut they can get a civil union, and I'm saying that the military needs to rethink what "family" means.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord said, "No I'm saying that if they wish to have a tax cut they can get a civil union"
OMG, I just stated that Civil Unions are not recognized in the military because it's not FEDERALLY, i say again, FEDERALLY recognized. Federally means the entire USA, and not just certain states only.
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 And I just stated that marriage doesn't define family. That's not an issue with marriage. That's an issue with what they think a family is.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
You know that in the military you are a resident of where ever you feel like and no mater where you live you are taxed by your resident state? The entire US doesn't mater. You abide by your states laws.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Okay, I'm aware that everyone in the military is taxed by their resident state. But we're talking about Civil Unions which isn't recognized in the military, versus Marriage which is recognized by the military therefore subjected to all kinds of benefits paid for the every Tax paying citizen in the US, including citizens that are Homosexuals.
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 And this is were I'm stating that they need to fix where they place their benefits... why do we have to keep playing this broken record?
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord said, "And this is were I'm stating that they need to fix where they place their benefits... "
I agree, they need to fix the current federal marriage law to include Gay couples
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 Except they can't. Reason being is that would uphold one religion over another. Sure, the thing about the Episcopal church that you aren't recognizing is that it's a division of the church. It can only be held by the state. The founding fathers recognized that every state had it's own denomination/religion. So they realize that the conflict of upholding certain moral laws was going to be an issue that would cause one religion to be held higher then the rest. Thus, state law.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Which is why Thomas Jefferson came up with teh idea of "Separation of Church and State"
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. That came up with the Google definition. What's your point?
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord wow, you talk as if laws can never change and are always concrete. I don't think so. And according to Merriam-Webster and other online dictionaries marriage is for both Straight couples and Gay couples
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 Of course it does. It's called political correctness. And now where did I say that the laws are concrete? I'm stating that marriage is religious. Why do you keep accusing me of stating what I'm not stating? Am I that unclear?
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord I agree with you, marriage is religious. So lets respect the religious rights of Churches that do celebrate Gay Marriage, shall we? Let your church and other churches not impose on each other. And forgive me if I assumed that you thought that marriage laws can't change to include Gay couples in it. My bad :(
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 yes, all I'm stating is that in the end gay marriage is equally as flawed as civil union. The way I see it is that the only real answer is to fix what you already have, civil union. This would satisfy so many arguments I'd think.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Many from the GLBT community see that Civil Unions don't work at all, and prefer to get married. And eventually have Gay Marriage Federally recognized so as not to limit Gay couples to enjoy their married life only in certain states, but in the entire US.
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 You say that, but I hear all my gay friends talk about being rejected in their married union... The higher freedom is just as limited. The only difference is that you have to fill a form everywhere you go with a civil union.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Gotta run errands real quick, I'll be back
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 lol... take your time..? :P
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord I'm back...wow, i missed out on a lot.
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 Yeah, somehow this became a debate on the Bible's root word of "rape"... lol
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jusitke07 Yeah, somehow this became a debate on the Bible's root word of rape... lol
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 Yeah, it somehow trailed off to how the NIV's translation of the word rape, is flawed... lol
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRawWord said, "Yeah, it somehow trailed off to how the NIV's translation of the word rape, is flawed... lol"
Oh dear...
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord "The only difference is that you have to fill a form everywhere you go with a civil union."
Actually, it's much more dramatic then that.
Surviving members of "civil union partnerships" of a member that died has had property that they and their loved one built together seized by vindictive families.
Such people have been denied hospital visitation rights.
Separate just isn't equal. Why do you think the pro gay supporters aren't backing down, now, over this issue?
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Well, the lovely thing is that I honestly don't believe that civil unions are a religious matter! They consider it to be so because of a minority. They are slowly but steadily raising from bad to better. I honestly believe that the fixing of civil union to work federally, would be constitutional... Perhaps I'm ignorant on some matter on it, because I can't see why that wouldn't be true. It doesn't actually raise or lower a religion above another...
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
You know... I've never understood this "hospital visitation rights". I used to work at a hospital in San Diego, the only people I wasn't allow to have enter to visit was if the patient wished it so. They fill a form stating if they'd like to be privately listed or not. If something drastic were to happen to them, everyone, including spouses, had to leave the room...
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Hospital visitation varies on state. Policy depends on state.
Maybe your area is a little less directly discriminatory.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 Well, it's called secular peoples. The whole point of seculars was because there was an issue where the founding father's combination of "general religion" and freedom of religion were interfering. Each state was starting to form their own denomination. These denominations didn't 100% agree on each other's moral laws. So they decided that each state has the right to have altered moral law. Most of these can be found in the journals of the founding fathers.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord A simple yes or no would suffice. Are you for abolishing gov't mandated marriage laws?
I personally would like to abolish gov't mandated marriage laws, and leave that for Church affairs to deal with. Because if the gov't doesn't care to abolish marriage laws catering to Straight couples, then make it fair and include Gay couples within that marriage laws so they can access the economic benefits that comes with it.
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 All I did was do what you told me to do... I looked up the definition online with google... it's not my fault that your attempt backfired... Besides, little thing about dictionaries: Often the definitions are different between one another. That's because some like to add political correctness... the tool of the liberal.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord What "definition online with google" are you talking about? Please direct me to your source of info...pretty please :)
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 On google, type in "define: marriage" This activates the Google dictionary.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord okays I did as you told me in looking into the google dictionary, and it says,
1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife
2.A similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 They take the majority of dictionaries and sum them up into one online dictionary. My point was that the definition isn't the same in the political correct world.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
Not to mention it would remove the part about the church attacks. Mostly, some extreme religious folk may claim that civil unions are striping our religious rights equally. But in the end they have no real way to back that up. Not even the (insert religious document here) can be support them on that.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord I can't figure why would religious extremist would think that other churches that celebrate Gay Marriage would strip away their religious rights as if their particular religion has the overall say in the US...that's childish thinking
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
@jusitke07 I never said they didn't exist. I'm saying that they've got the benefit in the wrong place. It should simply include anyone that has a second legal partner or dependent. The redefinition of marriage is unnecessary.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Oh speaking of the definition of Marriage, look up the word "MARRIAGE" in any online dictionary and see if it includes same sex couples. Get back to me on that will ya, thanks.
jusitke07 3 weeks ago
Well to be completely fair, you've through quite a few negative punches yourself. :P
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
Do you even know why the government adopted marriage in the first place? TO PROMOTE POPULATION OF THE HUMAN RACE! That's it! With that said, why should gays get that? Should a bad driver get the same benefits on their insurance as a good driver? Should a thief get the same time as a murderer? Just because someone doesn't have things in an equal share, doesn't mean they are being torn of their rights!
You can say that gays can still adopt, but that's a tax cut of a different color.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Religion: making good people do evil things for centuries. You do know that the bible was used in order to undermine black folk's rights, I hope.
Or do you simply plug your ears and go "LALALALA" with regards to that fact, too?
Gay marriage is going the same rout: people like me do not approve of religious loonies telling us who we should hate (and never providing any concrete reason why we should hate them).
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Oh yes, I know. The bible has been abused through history. The human nature is to seek power. Just because someone says they're christian doesn't make it so. After all, Christ says there is only one race. For someone to try to twist what it says through poor translation is the true evil. We are to avoid the wolfs dressed in sheep's clothing. And no, it is irrelevant. The government doesn't have the right to change the definition of a religious tradition.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Lol, this is a silly statement. I can name countless people in history that were not religious and still did evil things. That's human nature, not religion.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Did I say non-religious people can not do evil deeds? Noooo...
I said "religion: making GOOD people do evil deeds".
Please at least get the quote accurate.
"Well to be completely fair, you've through quite a few negative punches yourself. :P"
Usually, the "to be fair" is a statement of ones OWN guilt. But heedless of that technicality: I fess up to it. However: I make a statement regarding the atrocities endorsed by the bible: THEN I back it up with BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Yeah, I've added a negative twist to this and that. You're uneducated accusations of the bible are irrelevant to this issue. Just because you feel the bible is evil doesn't give you the right to stripe the freedom of religion.
And are you stating that non religious people are just evil and not good? Because I was stating we're all equal in our evils.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Uneducated about the bible? I have directly quoted several passages in the bible, and have been taking time each day to further educate myself about it.
Never have seen any direct biblical lit. from you, only justification on why the bible suggests to people to do horrendously evil and immoral deeds.
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Lol, if you want to quote the Bible to me and call it evil, I suggest you do the quoting in the ancient tongues. That and state which translation you are quoting, because so many times you come up with accusations that are the opposite of what it's stated. I also suggest if you want to state the irrelevant laws of the old testament, that you first learn the customs of ancient times. Your "evil" that you keep finding tends to be covered in a politically correct blanket.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord "But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death"
Not much room for confusion, there. Maybe the error is in the english translations, and it's up to the biblical scholors to fix it, hmmm?
Y'know... just a thought lol
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord And I do apologize I seemed to be "lashing out at" you. It's nothing personal. I just stopped letting people use personal beliefs to trample all over my own and other people's rights.
So yes: I will be tough on you, as an advocate for this book.
A book that says women should marry rapist: (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
Under penalty of death for marrying anyone else: (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine The penalty of death is complicated. I could write a novel on why this is so. However, it is no more the moment that Jesus died on the cross. Short story: The people that defied God's law were put to death and sadly sent to hell. However, Christ died as an perfect man. This is the sacrifice that nullified the old covenant. Jesus descended to hell, preached the new covenant to the prisoners of hell and even they were saved.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
Secondly, and according to the ancient language, rape isn't accurate. The greek words being translated to "rape" is: Taphas: to lay hold of, or to grasp. Simply a gross misinterpretation.
And Sakab: To lay with.
This is what I mean by uneducated. If you ever have an issue with a translation, I'd suggest talking to a pastor. They're trained in the ancient languages. Or be like me and learn them yourself.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago
@TheRawWord Then crack down on your biblical scholars to rewrite it, then. If you guys don't like being misconstrued, then update your bible to edit out these "errors"
SmashtheCmachine 3 weeks ago
@SmashtheCmachine Like I said that's virtually impossible. The difference between modern and ancient tongue is too vast.
TheRawWord 3 weeks ago