Fyi, that rule about tattoos is just for Jews. Get your facts straight.CaptainMarvelous said:Also
I'mjustgonnaleavethishere
Fyi, that rule about tattoos is just for Jews. Get your facts straight.CaptainMarvelous said:Also
I'mjustgonnaleavethishere
Perfectly understandable, its not fair to label someone as disliking same sex relationships simply because they don't want to put up with public scenes of affection from ANYBODY. Sometimes we go as much backwards as we do forwards.krazykidd said:Sure i support it , i don't care what people do in their homes . It's when it's made public that it bothers me . Two guys are girls kissing in the subway bothers me . But also a hetero sexual couple going at it annoys me too . Get a fucking room . Live and let live as i always say , but respect one another at the same time .
I dislike gay culture , though , the stereotypical gay people annoy the hell out of me . The average gay person does not though . Where did this weird culture come from ?
But the marriage issue doesn't really bother me . Being around homosexuals does make me uncomfortable but i won't start gay bashing , a sit and bare it like everyone else . You are free to do as you like , but with respect . And in turn i shall respect you . Even if i frown upon your practices , it is your life and i shall not interfere .
Just a small question, because I've heard the "some of those rules are only for Jewish people" thing a lot when discussing Leviticus with Bible-thumping homophobes: How exactly do you determine which rules in Leviticus are only for Jews and which ones are for everyone? So, using the example, how do you figure Lev 19:28 is only for Jews but Lev 18:22 isn't?Helmholtz Watson said:Fyi, that rule about tattoos is just for Jews. Get your facts straight.CaptainMarvelous said:Also
I'mjustgonnaleavethishere
It is actually very easy, here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_laws] is what you need to know.ReservoirAngel said:Just a small question, because I've heard the "some of those rules are only for Jewish people" thing a lot when discussing Leviticus with Bible-thumping homophobes: How exactly do you determine which rules in Leviticus are only for Jews and which ones are for everyone? So, using the example, how do you figure Lev 19:28 is only for Jews but Lev 18:22 isn't?
I've never read the Bible and don't intend to, but nobody I've asked has ever given me an actual answer to that one.
Also an off-topic side-note addressing the picture... what kind of bellend do you have to be to get homophobic Bible passages permanently inked into your body?
Huh... I see.Helmholtz Watson said:It is actually very easy, here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_laws] is what you need to know.ReservoirAngel said:Just a small question, because I've heard the "some of those rules are only for Jewish people" thing a lot when discussing Leviticus with Bible-thumping homophobes: How exactly do you determine which rules in Leviticus are only for Jews and which ones are for everyone? So, using the example, how do you figure Lev 19:28 is only for Jews but Lev 18:22 isn't?
I've never read the Bible and don't intend to, but nobody I've asked has ever given me an actual answer to that one.
Also an off-topic side-note addressing the picture... what kind of bellend do you have to be to get homophobic Bible passages permanently inked into your body?
Not to mention if either the man or the woman were infertile, does that mean they should not be allowed marriage? Or even the couples who don't want to have kids.Easton Dark said:"A married couple should be a man and a women to bring more souls into this world."
But dude, if they were already gay, they weren't going to be making children anyway, so why should that stop them from being married?
From a Jewish perspective? Because we were forced into exile, leave what we considered sacred behind(which got destroyed and controlled by other groups), had to give up our language("stein" and "berge" are not Hebrew sounding last names) and had to leave our homeland and live in various Middle Eastern and European countries where we were constantly oppressed and the only form of identity that we had was our religion. How's about that? Is that good enough for you? Honestly, it pisses me off sometimes how people can not fathom why we hold onto our identity.ReservoirAngel said:Huh... I see.
Okay, another question: Why the fuck are people still following rules set down in a book thousands of years ago?
You realize how incredibly insulting your being, right? Also that idea is based of the idea that humans are inherently good, which some people [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes] would disagree with.ReservoirAngel said:Not say all the rules are bad (the no killing and no stealing stuff ones make a lot of sense, obviously) but why do people feel we need religion to work that out? "I won't kill you and you don't take my shit" is not exactly a concept we needed to have a mythical Sky Wizard tell us, we could have figured that out without all the bells, whistles and bullshit that goes along with it.
A couple of things to point out here. First off why should a gay couple receive tax breaks for being married when the marriage tax breaks were put into effect to encourage people to have children?Regiment said:My own opinions aside (those opinions saying "gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue in these enlightened times"), there absolutely must be a legal equivalent to heterosexual marriage, if for no other reason than tax purposes. It is unfair to say that two people who are for all intents and purposes married cannot take a single legal step to make it so.
And honestly, if gay people want to get married, what right do I have to say "no"? It's not my marriage. Go right ahead. I hope they happily ever after together.
Okay that's a fairly good reason, and I apologise for coming off sounding like a bit of a prick. That seems to be a natural side-effect whenever I end up talking about religion.Helmholtz Watson said:From a Jewish perspective? Because we were forced into exile, leave what we considered sacred behind(which got destroyed and controlled by other groups), had to give up our language("stein" and "berge" are not Hebrew sounding last names) and had to leave our homeland and live in various Middle Eastern and European countries where we were constantly oppressed and the only form of identity that we had was our religion. How's about that? Is that good enough for you? Honestly, it pisses me off sometimes how people can not fathom why we hold onto our identity.ReservoirAngel said:Huh... I see.
Okay, another question: Why the fuck are people still following rules set down in a book thousands of years ago?
And what else, as a fundamentally non-religious person, would you like me to call the intangible being you choose to pray to? Really any way I choose to describe your deity of choice is going to come off sounding at least slightly insulting just on account of the person saying it.Helmholtz Watson said:You realize how incredibly insulting your being, right? Also that idea is based of the idea that humans are inherently good, which some people [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes] would disagree with.ReservoirAngel said:Not say all the rules are bad (the no killing and no stealing stuff ones make a lot of sense, obviously) but why do people feel we need religion to work that out? "I won't kill you and you don't take my shit" is not exactly a concept we needed to have a mythical Sky Wizard tell us, we could have figured that out without all the bells, whistles and bullshit that goes along with it.
Oh no, you mustn't make that comparison. If there's one thing a bunch of self-righteous moral crusader types who are trying to stop people having marriage rights based on a fundamental and unchangeable part of their identity absolutely cannot stand and soundly refute, it's being compared to a group of self-righteous moral crusader types who were trying to stop people having marriage rights based on a fundamental and unchangeable part of their identity.Mortai Gravesend said:Your last two arguments work pretty well against interracial marriage. It's funny how much the sentiment seems to overlap. Only change between those supporting bigotry is their particular flavor of bigotry.
What does their race have to do with anything?Easton Dark said:The other 2 against it were white chicks that said it's because the bible says so. That was their only reason. *shrug*
Actually even then no because we are talking about law if you support any you support it being legal... that you you want to be some sort of gay marriage arbiter who decides which gays can get married in which case you are really freaking weird.Risingblade said:So to stay neutral I should oppose some and support some.DANEgerous said:I know a lot of people say this and I am not trying to single out this instance so if you say this apply it to you.Risingblade said:Why is there no I don't care either way option?
If you do not care if people in a homosexual relationship call them selves married, you support gay marriage by not caring they call them self that.
In other words two men or women say "We are married" you respond "I do not care" that is a lack of opposition and thus by default an acceptance and support to the fact they are married
You do not care, thus you let it happen, thus you approve of, thus you support gay marriage because you do not care if it happens.
You do not care, yet you oppose, yet that means you do care, thus you're a fucking liar for saying you don't care