California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Was Jesus gay?

This guy sure does bring up some very good points and makes allot of sense doing so!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReYfDlIa-Z8&feature=related

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Was Jesus gay?

This guy sure does bring up some very good points and makes allot of sense doing so!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReYfDlIa-Z8&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

Thanks RL I not know about this Smile

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Yes they are legal definitions, SO WHAT???.

Now this quote should be taken as meaning if they have the legal recognition then they don't need anything else, do they ? But then in your drunken stupor, you go on to say :

Quote:

Gays wish to be recognized under the rules of MARRIAGE

WHY, dickhead, do they need marriage if they have legal recognition ? Any ideas or are you too drunk to think ?

Quote:

(as defined by the predominant {Think: CHRISTIAN RELIGION})

No, just THINK.... I pointed out to you the religions that have one man one woman for a marriage ceremony . Will you recognise that point or pathetically bluff away like usual ? Will you be changing the subject ?

Quote:

of being the master of the bleedin obvious

I would be happy if you were the master of anything, even geo...

Quote:

If a person is denied the enjoyment

Do you really think they will stop ******* if they are not married ? Really ?

Quote:

social contract rights, then there IS A FUCKIN LEGAL PROBLEM isnt there?

Why cant you keep track of your own inane utterances... is there a legal problem or a ceremony problem ? Do you want them to have a marriage ceremony or a legal status ? Does you thick stupid brain have any idea of the difference ? You talk about the bleeding obvious yet it is totally lost on you . In your pathetic little bottle are you doing well in this argument ? ******* idiot....

Quote:

WHICH WAS DERIVED FROM SOME ASSHOLE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Look dickhead, you may frighten yourself by shouting, but not me....I pointed out the different religions but you cant concede any point can you ? You are a frightened little man with low self esteem who sought refuge in the bottle .

Quote:

Im getting tired of always having to explain some of our more basic legal consequences of "being alive in the US".

And I am getting sick of your xenophobic racism . You always appeal to patriotism like a frightened little boy screaming "help me..filthy foreigners! " Will you turn on homosexuals next ?

Quote:

Can ya get it ANUS?

I think you have had it in the anus and passionately loved it .

Quote:

If you just want to hang around like some street thug, why not piss off

Yes, I think we have already established your credentials for being legally recognised as mentally ill but it never hurts to have a timely reminder ... to address your question...the answer is inherent to the question...have a good read and see if you can see it . What a turkey....

Quote:

does it rob you of vitamin D woith your head stuck so far up your ass?

You, **** and arseholes...you must have been toilet trained with a chainsaw..... can you sue the fools who raised you or is it too late ? Try typing with your forehead... you would have a higher accuracy of key strokes .

Quote:

If its the title thats got you all tangled up

Yes, it is the title because of the difficulty in convincing heterosexual couples that they are just another pair of mad fuckers and the follow on legal repercussions of adoption and so on .

Gomer the turd must seek help...for alcoholism, low self esteem, delusions of grandeur, and the use of a spell checker (but not bi-polar disorder) .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

An argument based upon a religious belief and rules of law so derived is , of course, idiotic for our country.

Our country...(cut to flag waving)... The argument is based on many religions world wide over tens of thousands of years .

Quote:

WE create the laws and we change them as we evolve into a more advanced civilization.

"WE" being anyone you approve of right ?

Quote:

such changes will be made against the will of the majority, JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

God bless Gomer the turd !! We dont need democracy... we have the Fuhrer !! (wipes tears).. Oh say can you see...by the dawn's early light ....(sorry..I cant continue .... he is just such a great man without any flaws...) Crying or Very sad

his typing skills alone are far above us mortals...

0 Replies

@RexRed,

Quote:

Marriage itself is a doorway to polygamy. Gay marriage does not make it any more or less so. Marriage was used for polygamy long before gays wanted in.

Actually Rex, just on that..... The Greek Empire which was still very homosexual driven at the time, did a lot of damage to polygamy, with the one man one woman relationship being ushered in everywhere it went .

Quote:

Ministers should "administer" love, healing and tolerance not drive teen homosexuals to go kill themselves.

A very good point .

Quote:

He who screams the loudest has the most to hide.

No, he who screams loudest is in the most pain .

0 Replies

@RexRed,

Quote:

If the catholic church cared about community they would have come out hard against their own pedophile priests

Yes they should have and to their eternal shame they didn't . But lets not take away responsibility from the homosexuals who became priests to molest boys . They committed the crime .

Quote:

They guarded their confessional

Would you like your confession in the gossip papers ? Men have died to protect the confessional and it has a lot of soul healing inherent to it . How many people would use the confessional if it was public ? How many people are helped by it ?

Quote:

the church had their chance to show their love for "community" and they blew it.

Regrettably, you are right . Worse still, it is not the first time....

Quote:

Gays are certainly better off married and out in the open

They are certainly better off out in the open without shame but why do they need marriage ?

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

There are enough problems determining someone's sexuality who is alive now let alone if they lived two thousand years ago .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

There are enough problems determining someone's sexuality who is alive now let alone if they lived two thousand years ago .

It is not that hard to determine someones sexual activity when they are written about with "words" by supposed "disciples" who claim to be "eyewitnesses" and whose testimony is referred to as "gospel".

Words have particular meanings and enough words can certainly constitute a preponderance of evidence.

I am still wondering why Peter denied Jesus so many times before the cock crowed twice.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

Ah, Rex, I'm not talking anything - I posted this from a tweet that said if this is where the arguments of organised religion are at vis a vis gay marriage then we should just legalise it now. The whole point is how ludicrous the argument is.

I'm sorry I didn't give you context.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

No, just THINK.... I pointed out to you the religions that have one man one woman for a marriage ceremony . Will you recognise that point or pathetically bluff away like usual ? Will you be changing the subject ?

That point is merely one of your irrelevant bluffs. Marriage as an institution is primarily governed by the rules of the major "Bible centric" religions in the US. The "rules" are strongly influenced by the "Priests" . Enjoyment of staus and benefits is defined by mostly local law(Im not aware of a section of the US Constitution that prevents marriage between gays or "defines marriage as a heterosexual union" this is all smoke and bullshit to control the idiot masses (And guys like you who buy into it)

Quote:

WHY, dickhead, do they need marriage if they have legal recognition

Biy, I think maybe we may finally be getting through that thick skull of yours. THATS THE POINT !!! They dont have ANY legal recognition for any state of union, be it marriage or civil union. (Several other posters have stressed this and you just dont seem to get it no matter how gently its presented to you.Ive found that you are at least consistently dense. I havent found a subject in which you participate as an equal. You always seem to be several miles behind )

Quote:

I would be happy if you were the master of anything, even geo...

You are totally unqualified to render an opinion about geology , youve been consistently uninformed since you joined up on A2K. You are a sick twisted buffoon with very few skills besides "gruntology"

Quote:

I pointed out the different religions but you cant concede any point can you ?

In your mind. Youve pointed out NOTHING. You show me where, in the US the huge lobby of Hindu or Dukhaborian government. The US is , unfortunately underpinned by the major religions of "The Book" To fail to see this just continuously reinforces how little you understand about US customs, laws, and social structure.

Once more.
A Legal status (like the married state) carries with it certain benefits under the laws of the several states (thats why this battle is being waged state by state). These benefits , such as (JTWROS, visitation,shared medical, joint accounts etc) are only conveyed to the married state partners. That excludes gay partners in todays US. Do you get it?
I womder whether you are able to make a purchase at a local store without going into some overload of misunderstanding

Ive tried to be enlightening while Im name calling. You, on the other hand, are doing nothing but suistaining a position of obstinacy. Why is that? I dont think you are really as dumb as you come off.
Are you just afraid of gays? do they threaten you? Is your world so empty of diversity to celebrate that you only wanna make noises with guys who only believe like you?

Finish your therapy and get well.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Marriage as an institution is primarily governed by the rules of the major "Bible centric" religions in the US.

No it isn't. That is a red herring coming from one whose prejudices blot out his thought processes.

It is governed by practical economic and social considerations. Religious sanction merely provides some power or guidance.

An argument can be made that the practical considerations are now out of date and if homosexuals would make that argument they might get somewhere. The continual harping on about the religion requires that acceptance of the demands of homosexuals carries with it a rejection of religion and is therefore a millstone around their necks. Homosexuals need to demonstrate the advantages, economic and social, of their proposals.

The rules are not strongly influenced by priests for no reason. Argue with the reason. It's a cop out to argue with the priests just because they are priests.

But anybody who uses phrases like "idiot masses" is unworthy of consideration. It is obviously a claim to be a member of some superior and intelligent elite which enjoys looking down on the rest of us. As such, homosexuals would be better off dispensing with such support. The masses are hardly likely to be enamoured by such remarks and they do the voting. It must be keenly frustrating to be a member of such an elite and have one's only vote cancelled out by a member of the "idiotic masses". I feel for the barmpot. He has my deepest sympathy. Biting the edge of a table is the only known palliative.

Quote:

The US is , unfortunately underpinned by the major religions of "The Book...

It is also the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world. Which is probably the reason Mr Obama swore his oaths over the Bible and the leading lights appeared in church during the inauguration festivities.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Marriage as an institution is primarily governed by the rules of the major "Bible centric" religions in the US.

No it isn't. That is a red herring coming from one whose prejudices blot out his thought processes.

Really a red herring? I think that you can get married just in a church - and that qualifies as a 'legal, secular marriage'. And is "registered" as such.

But I might be wrong here ...

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

civil laws are derived from several sources. The institution of marriage is so unconsciously laden with church centric lingo that its diificult to distinguish where one ends and the other begins. The institution is governed by
1religious "rules" quietly asserted in law
2Health regs (to assure against congenital diseases and hereditary syndromes)
3civil law

When civil laws do not recognize a state of wedlock (whether "holy" or not), the partners cannot benefit from a whole passel of gimmes from the states. To not understand this fact, Im incredulous.
Are the rules of matrimony (or civil unions) in EU countries so formalized that all the malefic **** we have to accept dont exist? Maybe thats why the Australian doesnt get anything herein

3 Replies

@farmerman,

There are quite a few countries which have different civil laws, e.g. those, which were influenced by the Code Napoléon.
In Germany, and most other European countries, a marriage in a church is just and only a religious thing (in Germany, you can't get married in a church before you got married by a registrar at a registry office).

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Really a red herring?

Yeah--really!!! The practical considerations are what determine the religious position.

Quote:

? I think that you can get married just in a church - and that qualifies as a 'legal, secular marriage'. And is "registered" as such.

It isn't here but the C of E is established so its ceremony does constitute official recognition. Other churches need two ceremonies. The one in church and one, usually backstage, with a civil servant. The Registrar. The marriage is legal with just the Registrar.

A Social Democratic politician takes a position on, say, Libya, based on the practicalities and not on being a Social Democrat.

I'm amazed how difficult it is to explain this simple point to intelligent people.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

When civil laws do not recognize a state of wedlock (whether "holy" or not), the partners cannot benefit from a whole passel of gimmes from the states. To not understand this fact, Im incredulous.

Well--I understand it so barmyman's incredulity is wasted on me. The "passel of gimmes" has an agreed political function. It is to encourage heterosexual monogamy in order to achieve an objective the usefulness of which can be argued about. The validity is obvious.

What's the point of a "passel of gimmes" which has no result relating to the objective? Delivering the "passel of gimmes" to those who shout the loudest will not be lost on others. Single men and women for example. Why should they miss out on the gravy ladle if the objective is not a consideration.

It's laughable watching somebody try to defend an impossible position based entirely on his hatred of priests and religion and who has many times refused to answer the question--does he want religion exterminated?

Just as the legalisation of gambling in Nevada had economic benefits to the State precisely because gambling was illegal in most other states so also the legalisation of homosexual unions has economic benefits but only so long as the states that do it are a minority.

Once the "passel of gimmes" is everybody's we are back at square No 1. Blokes who are going to live abroad for a few years will fix a pal up with the "passel of gimmes", sharing them out, simply by wandering down to the Civic Hall and getting "married". No homosexual component being needed.
Rooming houses containing 20 heterosexual cowboys will get down there in pairs and partake of the "passel of gimmes" without any other noticeable effects. Except maybe a bit of sheepish grinning.

It's as if human nature never enters barmyman's head in his quaintly theoretical abstracted noggin. "Passels of gimmes" soon get queues forming.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I'm happy to report that my posts are thumbed down before being read.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

The marriage is legal with just the Registrar. That should be so, and there should been the need for "just" - in a secular country it shouldn't been legal with just the vicar.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

To be clear I only wrote the first 8 words of that.

The rest is not mine and I don't agree with it. I don't recognise any marriage unless conducted in a church.

3 Replies

@spendius,

Sorry for the wrong quote lines.

0 Replies

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know