4li2k73z Share your Vital activity on Facebook (More info)
close

Congratulations North Carolina

2strokebarrett

C100_searle_1398580264

Posts: 1571

Joined: 8/31/2010

Location: Cymru, GBR

5/11/2012 9:38 AM

burn1986 wrote: Either way, this is God's attitude toward gays or whatever you want to call it:

6 The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed. 7 He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel. 8 The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. 9 He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever. 10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. 11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. 12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. 13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him. 14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. 15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. 16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more. 17 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; 18 To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.

Whitey wrote: What a load of bollocks that crap is.

x2. It's complete bollocks.

I regret my username, I chose it before I realized that the pro 2 stroke crowd on vital mx are completely and utterly insane


The facts contradict my opinion, but my opinion is the only thing that matters

burn1986

C100_2015_yz_1401991639

Posts: 6132

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/11/2012 10:47 AM

Which part?

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15256

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/11/2012 10:56 AM
Edited Date/Time: 5/11/2012 10:58 AM

vet323 wrote: Take the word "marriage" out of that-don't let the government used that word at all- and the problem is solved.

This subject is silly to be talking about when there are far more important things to talk about.

That's where the problem is. Government needs to redefine whatever they call a legal union between adults, for the purpose of exacting benefits from the system. They need to get out of ruling on the religious-marriage business. However, they don't, and a lot of people don't want them to, so they can pull off shit like what's happening now.

And, it isn't silly. The way it's set up now, it's creating inequality. If you think that's unimportant, than maybe we should turn back the clocks a few decades and get rid of civil rights laws for race. How's that sit with ya'? How 'bout a few more decades and we can put the women back in the kitchen as our servants?

All people are equal. If the religious want to play games with that, go ahead...but do it within the walls of your worship. Go control your followers any way you like. Hell, make the women walk behind you in public, for all I care. Just don't forcibly spread that shit out to the rest of us who find it childish and antiquated.

Rooster

C100_614754568_1207059471

Posts: 4452

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: Edmonton, CAN

5/11/2012 11:00 AM

burn1986 wrote: Which part?

All of it.

Do you live your life by the rules of the old testament?

Do you kill your child if they speak back to you?

I sure hope you're not wearing any blended fabrics, you're going straight to hell for it if you are.



Empty a bag of skittles into the toilet and then flush. It's like watching a five second long nascar race.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2964

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/11/2012 11:15 AM

jtomasik wrote: It's pretty damn simple:

1. The government recognizes marital status issued by churches.
2. That status affords benefits for the individual.
3. If it's a church's (or other authorized entity) decision to issue same sex marriages, that's their choice, and not that of the government or any other religion/entity.
4. The government ruling against this is creating inequality and arguably could be establishing religion.


Fair is fair. Allowing same sex marriages doesn't mean YOUR religion/church has to. That's your church's decision.

vet323 wrote: Take the word "marriage" out of that-don't let the government used that word at all- and the problem is solved.

This subject is silly to be talking about when there are far more important things to talk about.

jtomasik wrote: That's where the problem is. Government needs to redefine whatever they call a legal union between adults, for the purpose of exacting benefits from the system. They need to get out of ruling on the religious-marriage business. However, they don't, and a lot of people don't want them to, so they can pull off shit like what's happening now.

And, it isn't silly. The way it's set up now, it's creating inequality. If you think that's unimportant, than maybe we should turn back the clocks a few decades and get rid of civil rights laws for race. How's that sit with ya'? How 'bout a few more decades and we can put the women back in the kitchen as our servants?

All people are equal. If the religious want to play games with that, go ahead...but do it within the walls of your worship. Go control your followers any way you like. Hell, make the women walk behind you in public, for all I care. Just don't forcibly spread that shit out to the rest of us who find it childish and antiquated.

Most Americans want to remain tied to the religious / cultural traditions the country was founded on whether they are religious or not. Most Americans value their cultural tradition. So unless the SCOTUS say's it is a constitutional matter the citizens are free to decide if it is worth changing or not. When citizens have had the opportunity to vote on this issue they have chosen to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15256

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/11/2012 11:17 AM
Edited Date/Time: 5/11/2012 11:18 AM

gabrielmalinois wrote: Most Americans want to remain tied to the religious / cultural traditions the country was founded on whether they are religious or not. Most Americans value their cultural tradition. So unless the SCOTUS say's it is a constitutional matter the citizens are free to decide if it is worth changing or not. When citizens have had the opportunity to vote on this issue they have chosen to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Not when it goes against the Bill or Rights, slick. Last thing I want is the retarded masses who vote morons like Obama and GW in to office to decide on matters of equality. We need educated people doing that, not some religious retard with an agenda.

Have you ever produced that data that quantifiably shows same sex marriage is bad for society?

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2964

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/11/2012 11:22 AM
Edited Date/Time: 5/11/2012 11:23 AM

jtomasik wrote: That's where the problem is. Government needs to redefine whatever they call a legal union between adults, for the purpose of exacting benefits from the system. They need to get out of ruling on the religious-marriage business. However, they don't, and a lot of people don't want them to, so they can pull off shit like what's happening now.

And, it isn't silly. The way it's set up now, it's creating inequality. If you think that's unimportant, than maybe we should turn back the clocks a few decades and get rid of civil rights laws for race. How's that sit with ya'? How 'bout a few more decades and we can put the women back in the kitchen as our servants?

All people are equal. If the religious want to play games with that, go ahead...but do it within the walls of your worship. Go control your followers any way you like. Hell, make the women walk behind you in public, for all I care. Just don't forcibly spread that shit out to the rest of us who find it childish and antiquated.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Most Americans want to remain tied to the religious / cultural traditions the country was founded on whether they are religious or not. Most Americans value their cultural tradition. So unless the SCOTUS say's it is a constitutional matter the citizens are free to decide if it is worth changing or not. When citizens have had the opportunity to vote on this issue they have chosen to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

jtomasik wrote: Not when it goes against the Bill or Rights, slick. Last thing I want is the retarded masses who vote morons like Obama and GW in to office to decide on matters of equality. We need educated people doing that, not some religious retard with an agenda.

Have you ever produced that data that quantifiably shows same sex marriage is bad for society?

That is what I said. If the SCOTUS says it is against the Bill of Rights then it is. If they don't, it is up to the states.

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15256

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/11/2012 11:23 AM

gabrielmalinois wrote: That is what I said. If the SCOTUS says it is against the Bill of Rights then it is. If they don't, it is up to the states.

And people need to speak up to bring those hillbilly's up to the 21st century.

Now, where's that data?

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2964

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/11/2012 11:34 AM

jtomasik wrote: Not when it goes against the Bill or Rights, slick. Last thing I want is the retarded masses who vote morons like Obama and GW in to office to decide on matters of equality. We need educated people doing that, not some religious retard with an agenda.

Have you ever produced that data that quantifiably shows same sex marriage is bad for society?

gabrielmalinois wrote: That is what I said. If the SCOTUS says it is against the Bill of Rights then it is. If they don't, it is up to the states.

jtomasik wrote: And people need to speak up to bring those hillbilly's up to the 21st century.

Now, where's that data?

It either is or it isn't. I am guessing it hasn't been brought to them because it isn't and they would probably just say it is a state issue. What data are you talking about?

burn1986

C100_2015_yz_1401991639

Posts: 6132

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/11/2012 2:29 PM
Edited Date/Time: 5/11/2012 2:31 PM

burn1986 wrote: Which part?

Rooster wrote: All of it.

Do you live your life by the rules of the old testament?

Do you kill your child if they speak back to you?

I sure hope you're not wearing any blended fabrics, you're going straight to hell for it if you are.

Well, it seemed like a pretty good verse about mercy and grace, which I need plenty of. I don't know if I would call the Bible a load of bollocks and crap. To each his own, I guess.

Rooster

C100_614754568_1207059471

Posts: 4452

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: Edmonton, CAN

5/11/2012 3:11 PM

burn1986 wrote: Well, it seemed like a pretty good verse about mercy and grace, which I need plenty of. I don't know if I would call the Bible a load of bollocks and crap. To each his own, I guess.

What's a load of crap is that you want others to live by a standard that even you refuse to live by.

If you're going to quote Psalms from the old testament as a reason why it's OK to judge the way others live then you better be able to walk that walk.

So do you or don't you live according to the old testament rules and if you don't why do you think it's OK to judge others for not doing so?

Have you ever had sexual relations with a woman outside of wedlock? The very same passage that condemns homosexuality condemns pre-marital sex as just as bad.

If you want to dredge up old testament rules that pertain to marriage, then I have to ask. Do you gift a wife to your slave? When your slave earns emancipation, do you keep the wife you gave him and the children she born as your own?

What animal would you sacrifice if you were caught raping a maidservant that was engaged to another man? How many lashes with the whip should the female slave get for being raped?

If you die and leave a wife behind, do you expect your eldest brother to marry and impregnate her as he is taught to do?

There's a lot of fucked up rules in the old testament. Don't trot out what you like when it serves you and ignore it at will when it doesn't.



Empty a bag of skittles into the toilet and then flush. It's like watching a five second long nascar race.

rucka356

C100_618383098_1207052203

Posts: 809

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: Knoxville, TN USA

5/11/2012 6:44 PM

rucka356 wrote: Nature tells us it's wrong. As pointed out before if everyone was gay life would come to an end (without science/naturally). And yes, i wouldn't want teachers teaching my kids that it's okay to be gay. The fact is, it's wrong, if you don't think so then join them. Personally I think if they want the tax breaks and the insurance advantages then fine, just don't call it "marriage." Marriage was defined a long time ago as between a man and a woman. Since that is not the case with gays, shouldn't it be different? It's like looking at two different colors and calling them the same thing, it doesn't make sense.

motogeezer wrote: "One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species,"

Read more:

1500 Species of Animals...

The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.

"The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing," says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. "You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males."


Read more:

National Geographic News

UpTiTe wrote: And my dog wants to mate with my leg too, is that natural?

I guess the better question is, is your leg pregnent? Can it get pregnant? I guess they not meant to be together......

"So you're telling me there's a chance!!"

motogeezer

C100_th_photo_2004_12_4_4_50_50_edited

Posts: 5499

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: Yorba Linda, CA USA

5/12/2012 12:39 AM

rucka356 wrote: I guess the better question is, is your leg pregnent? Can it get pregnant? I guess they not meant to be together......

Your hand can't get pregnant either, but I bet that ain't stoppin' you...

JustMX

C100_jmx_work_out

Posts: 1969

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: USA

5/12/2012 5:04 AM

burn1986 wrote: It sounds like we need to outlaw marriage altogether.

You know, after thinking about this I think that might be a simple solution.

Marriage isn't what it used to be. A divorce is a simple thing now compared to what it used to be.

All of the entanglements that come with it could be easily duplicated through negotiated agreements before hand.

Pre Nuptial arangements and legal agreements about property and survivorship could be short, fill-in-the-blank agreements.

Those that chose to could still make a religious commitment, and then sign all the proper forms with nothing assumed.

Everything could be handled by partnership agreements, Medical power of attornies, and a will.

The only other thing needed would be a simplified tax code that no longer has an option for Married people.

There, problem solved, and not a hint of homophobia.

APLMAN99

C100

Posts: 2314

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: WA, USA

5/12/2012 9:51 AM

reded wrote: You're not gay and you apparently don't live in North Carolina. It's not your problem and it doesn't affect you, don't worry about it.

What a dumbshit attitude....

oldfart

C100_mandelalifeu_1372655121

Posts: 21441

Joined: 8/15/2006

Location: Las Vegas, NV USA

5/12/2012 10:35 AM

burn1986 wrote: It sounds like we need to outlaw marriage altogether.

JustMX wrote: You know, after thinking about this I think that might be a simple solution.

Marriage isn't what it used to be. A divorce is a simple thing now compared to what it used to be.

All of the entanglements that come with it could be easily duplicated through negotiated agreements before hand.

Pre Nuptial arangements and legal agreements about property and survivorship could be short, fill-in-the-blank agreements.

Those that chose to could still make a religious commitment, and then sign all the proper forms with nothing assumed.

Everything could be handled by partnership agreements, Medical power of attornies, and a will.

The only other thing needed would be a simplified tax code that no longer has an option for Married people.

There, problem solved, and not a hint of homophobia.

Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce now. I'm sure there's a message in that number somewhere........probably not a good one either.

Strictly from a business perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Not very good odds for the gambler either. In fact, the only one it makes sense for is the one with an exit strategy in hand prior to entering into that "religious" bond, or their legal counsel, or both. Seems the only one left holding the empty bag in fact IS the religious entity it's supposedly based on.

Kind of a vicious cycle if you step back and look at it.

"It always seems impossible until it's done." -- Nelson Mandela

Tiki

C100_135734890_1287021403

Posts: 9943

Joined: 8/1/2006

Location: Corona, CA USA

5/13/2012 3:22 PM

Someone needs to make a horror film where the monster is nothing more than some gay guy, well dressed and he walks into a room and says: "Surprise - what are you bitches talking about?" He could organize a closet, take your girl friend shopping and for the climax, he and his partner get married and kiss.

It would be a No. 1 weekend film scaring all the toothless, brainless hicks half to death. Maybe some religious moron could picket the theater.

mtnr

C100

Posts: 274

Joined: 3/29/2010

Location: ., ID USA

5/13/2012 4:05 PM

Rooster and Tiki are killing it! Classic posts.

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15256

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/14/2012 9:17 AM

Hipocrisy and the bible.

"...Call it historical irony: Black church leaders arguing against same-sex marriage are making some of the same arguments that supporters of slavery made in the 18th and 19th centuries, some historians say. Both groups adopted a literal reading of the Bible to justify withholding basic rights from a particular group...."


Time to grow up, Christians.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2964

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/14/2012 11:02 AM

jtomasik wrote: Hipocrisy and the bible.

"...Call it historical irony: Black church leaders arguing against same-sex marriage are making some of the same arguments that supporters of slavery made in the 18th and 19th centuries, some historians say. Both groups adopted a literal reading of the Bible to justify withholding basic rights from a particular group...."


Time to grow up, Christians.

Hmmm. Is it hypocritical for you to tell someone to grow up? Lets see, the bible is very clear that homosexual acts are sinful and being black isn't so I don't really see any hypocrisy here.

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15256

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/14/2012 11:13 AM
Edited Date/Time: 5/14/2012 11:14 AM

jtomasik wrote: Hipocrisy and the bible.

"...Call it historical irony: Black church leaders arguing against same-sex marriage are making some of the same arguments that supporters of slavery made in the 18th and 19th centuries, some historians say. Both groups adopted a literal reading of the Bible to justify withholding basic rights from a particular group...."


Time to grow up, Christians.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Hmmm. Is it hypocritical for you to tell someone to grow up? Lets see, the bible is very clear that homosexual acts are sinful and being black isn't so I don't really see any hypocrisy here.

I wasn't referring to skin color. I was referring to Christians justifying slavery in the bible. Here are some of the many examples:

Exod. 21:20-21
When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.

Eph. 6:5-6
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.


1Pet. 2:18-29
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval.



Do you think slavery and ownership of a human is ok? Apparently it is in the bible.

Time for Christians to step away from the literal translation of that book. This is a perfect example why. The same applies to homosexuality.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2964

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/14/2012 11:37 AM

jtomasik wrote: Hipocrisy and the bible.

"...Call it historical irony: Black church leaders arguing against same-sex marriage are making some of the same arguments that supporters of slavery made in the 18th and 19th centuries, some historians say. Both groups adopted a literal reading of the Bible to justify withholding basic rights from a particular group...."


Time to grow up, Christians.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Hmmm. Is it hypocritical for you to tell someone to grow up? Lets see, the bible is very clear that homosexual acts are sinful and being black isn't so I don't really see any hypocrisy here.

jtomasik wrote: I wasn't referring to skin color. I was referring to Christians justifying slavery in the bible. Here are some of the many examples:

Exod. 21:20-21
When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.

Eph. 6:5-6
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.


1Pet. 2:18-29
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval.



Do you think slavery and ownership of a human is ok? Apparently it is in the bible.

Time for Christians to step away from the literal translation of that book. This is a perfect example why. The same applies to homosexuality.

Literal doesn't mean take it out of context. The context and even what slavery was in the Old Testament is very different than the context of American slavery. in the New Testament slavery is not at all condoned. The verses you quoted clearly state that it is "suffering" and how a person should view their suffering. These verses don't say that institution of slavery is okay, They are simply encouraging Christian slaves to view their lives from an eternal perspective and to live out the gospel in their present circumstance.

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15256

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/14/2012 11:42 AM

gabrielmalinois wrote: Literal doesn't mean take it out of context. The context and even what slavery was in the Old Testament is very different than the context of American slavery. in the New Testament slavery is not at all condoned. The verses you quoted clearly state that it is "suffering" and how a person should view their suffering. These verses don't say that institution of slavery is okay, They are simply encouraging Christian slaves to view their lives from an eternal perspective and to live out the gospel in their present circumstance.

Yeah, and 100 years ago many conservative Christians would say it wasn't out of context. You guys are changing your interpretations every generation. 100 years from now, and you'd be singing a different tune when it comes to homosexuality.

These verses most certainly suggest slavery is just fine. It's amazing how Christians twist the meaning of the bible to suit their needs. No wonder you have hundreds of cults all disagreeing with each other.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2964

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/14/2012 11:58 AM
Edited Date/Time: 5/14/2012 11:59 AM

jtomasik wrote: I wasn't referring to skin color. I was referring to Christians justifying slavery in the bible. Here are some of the many examples:

Exod. 21:20-21
When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.

Eph. 6:5-6
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.


1Pet. 2:18-29
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval.



Do you think slavery and ownership of a human is ok? Apparently it is in the bible.

Time for Christians to step away from the literal translation of that book. This is a perfect example why. The same applies to homosexuality.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Literal doesn't mean take it out of context. The context and even what slavery was in the Old Testament is very different than the context of American slavery. in the New Testament slavery is not at all condoned. The verses you quoted clearly state that it is "suffering" and how a person should view their suffering. These verses don't say that institution of slavery is okay, They are simply encouraging Christian slaves to view their lives from an eternal perspective and to live out the gospel in their present circumstance.

jtomasik wrote: Yeah, and 100 years ago many conservative Christians would say it wasn't out of context. You guys are changing your interpretations every generation. 100 years from now, and you'd be singing a different tune when it comes to homosexuality.

These verses most certainly suggest slavery is just fine. It's amazing how Christians twist the meaning of the bible to suit their needs. No wonder you have hundreds of cults all disagreeing with each other.

People twist the Bible to make mean all kinds of things. The abolitionist movement was 100% driven by Christians who didn't interpret the bible the same way as those who used it to justify slavery, so how would you explain that? They had the same Bible and didn't view slavery as fine. So why did they risk everything to help people who could do nothing for them. They must have gotten it from the Bible.

These verses don't at all condone slavery. If you want me to explain it more in-depthly then I will, but if you look at the second two passages you should be able to see that they are simply telling a slave how to conduct themselves in their present situation. These slaves had no option for freedom but they had an option on how to conduct themselves.

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15256

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/14/2012 12:04 PM
Edited Date/Time: 5/14/2012 12:04 PM

gabrielmalinois wrote: People twist the Bible to make mean all kinds of things. The abolitionist movement was 100% driven by Christians who didn't interpret the bible the same way as those who used it to justify slavery, so how would you explain that? They had the same Bible and didn't view slavery as fine. So why did they risk everything to help people who could do nothing for them. They must have gotten it from the Bible.

These verses don't at all condone slavery. If you want me to explain it more in-depthly then I will, but if you look at the second two passages you should be able to see that they are simply telling a slave how to conduct themselves in their present situation. These slaves had no option for freedom but they had an option on how to conduct themselves.

And just the same as the abolitionists, there are Christians today who think that homosexuality is fine. Point is that the mainstream Christian opinion is always progressing towards a more intelligent, philosophical nature. Maybe 500 or 600 years from now, and you guys will catch up with the Buddhists. You're headed that direction...slowly.

Oh, and the whole thing about the federal government ruling to keep same sex marriages illegal is idiotic. Some churches want to allow it. The Federal government should respect their choice, because that's true freedom of religion. If your church doesn't want to, that's fine. Keep it to yourselves.

three9zero

C100_pa310005

Posts: 606

Joined: 9/26/2010

Location: The Rockies, CAN

5/14/2012 12:11 PM

burn1986 wrote: Which part?

Perhaps the part where you think that "YOUR" God is the same as other peoples.

I read this a while back and it got me thinking, the below is a quote are not my thoughts, but he/she pretty much hits the nail on the head.

"We live in an interesting time. We're on the brink of the singularity, the next step in human evolution-but a majority of humanity is still living in the dark ages. Never has there been such polar opposites of human depravity and enlightenment. We simultaneously have religious fanatics believing in fairy tales from the past, and physicists looking to the future, discovering the nature of the universe and the meaning of life. Religion and religious people terrify me. There are people running your country who have religious beliefs that are the equivalent to believing that "Star Wars" is real. That is a scary thought. Religion is the main obstacle standing in the way of human progress, understanding and peace. We've evolved past the need for religion. Everyone is entitled to their own belief, but it should be personal, not pushed onto others. It's served it's purpose and it's time to move on before we end up blowing each other up."

three9zero

C100_pa310005

Posts: 606

Joined: 9/26/2010

Location: The Rockies, CAN

5/14/2012 12:15 PM

Tiki wrote: Someone needs to make a horror film where the monster is nothing more than some gay guy, well dressed and he walks into a room and says: "Surprise - what are you bitches talking about?" He could organize a closet, take your girl friend shopping and for the climax, he and his partner get married and kiss.

It would be a No. 1 weekend film scaring all the toothless, brainless hicks half to death. Maybe some religious moron could picket the theater.

Hahahahhaha.

three9zero

C100_pa310005

Posts: 606

Joined: 9/26/2010

Location: The Rockies, CAN

5/14/2012 12:20 PM

jndmx wrote:

Hahahhahhahahaha

"Incest is da best, put yer cuzin 2 the test"

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2964

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/14/2012 12:38 PM

jtomasik wrote: And just the same as the abolitionists, there are Christians today who think that homosexuality is fine. Point is that the mainstream Christian opinion is always progressing towards a more intelligent, philosophical nature. Maybe 500 or 600 years from now, and you guys will catch up with the Buddhists. You're headed that direction...slowly.

Oh, and the whole thing about the federal government ruling to keep same sex marriages illegal is idiotic. Some churches want to allow it. The Federal government should respect their choice, because that's true freedom of religion. If your church doesn't want to, that's fine. Keep it to yourselves.

There are some Christians who think homosexuality is fine, however they can't justify it biblically so they either have chosen something to ignore or they do not hold an orthodox view of the Bible The teaching in the bible on sexual ethics is very clear there is no way around it if you are someone who believes the bible. Obama calling out African American pastors on this issue is not going to go over well at all.

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15256

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/14/2012 12:42 PM

gabrielmalinois wrote: There are some Christians who think homosexuality is fine, however they can't justify it biblically so they either have chosen something to ignore or they do not hold an orthodox view of the Bible The teaching in the bible on sexual ethics is very clear there is no way around it if you are someone who believes the bible. Obama calling out African American pastors on this issue is not going to go over well at all.

And, that's their opinion vs. yours. 200 years ago, neither of us would be arguing against the idea that slavery was just fine in the bible. Religious beliefs change over time, no matter how vehemently you want to believe something is clear and without challenge in any religious writing. It happens with all religions.

I still don't understand why you want to go against the Constitution. You must be anti-American.
Post a Reply to: Congratulations North Carolina

To post, please join, log in or connect to Vital using your Facebook profile Fb_connect_sm