Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[m52nickerson]

ATPG the Bible does not contradict itself.

Really. Let put an end to this fallacy right now.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
How many stalls and horsemen?

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.
Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Snails do not melt

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
Fowl from waters or ground?

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Odd genetic engineering

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Earth supported?

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Heaven supported too

JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
The hydrological cycle

ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Storehouses are not part of the cycle
Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days."
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)
Moses' personality

NUM 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

NUM 31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."
Righteous live?

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

ACT 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

MAT 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."
Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

MAT 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

LUK 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."
Jesus' last words

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Years of famine

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
Moved David to anger?

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. MAT 1:6-16 and LUK 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.
God be seen?

EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)
CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)
Tempts?

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (GEN 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)
Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)
Ascend to heaven

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2KI 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (JOH 3:13)
What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?

Before the cock crow - MAT 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - MAR 14:30
How many times did the cock crow?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount

MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
Does every man sin?

1KI 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

2CH 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Who bought potter's field

ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Who prophesied the potter's field?

MAT 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13
Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
Marriage?

Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)
Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

(various traipsings)
How many apostles were in office between the resurrection and ascension?

1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
MAT 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
ACT 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)

MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Judging

1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)

1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."
Good deeds

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)
For or against?

MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)
Whom did they see at the tomb?

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
God change?

MAL 3:6
JAS 1:17
1SA 15:29
JON 3:10
GEN 6:6
Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)

MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

ZEC 11:11-13 (Note: There is nothing in Jeremiah remotely like this.)
Who's sepulchers

ACT 7:16
GEN 23:17,18
Strong drink?

PRO 31:6,7
JOH 2:11-11
When second coming?

MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

(See also 1TH 4:15-18)
Solomon's overseers

1KI 9:23 550
2CH 8:10 250
The mother of Abijah:

2CH 11:20 Maachah the daughter of Absalom

2CH 13:2 Michaiah the daughter of Uriel
When did Baasha die?

1KI 16:6-8 26th year of the reign of Asa

2CH 16:1 36th year of the reign of Asa
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

2KI 8:26 22

2CH 22:2 42
Who was Josiah's successor?

2CH 36:1 Jehoahaz

JER 22:11 Shallum
The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.
What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

MAT 27:28 scarlet

JOH 19:2 purple
What did they give him to drink?

MAT 27:34 vinegar

MAR 15:23 wine with myrrh
How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Depends where you look; MAT 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and MAR 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again." As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days," but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day."

That is a lot of contradictions

[KukriKhan]

Let's rather, stay on-topic, please: "Another State Legalizes gay Marriage".

[PanzerJaeger]

I speak like a fool most of the time but I am not compelled by some “duty”.

Same here..

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The term marriage goes way back. It has traditionally been defined, throughout Western culture, as the union of a man and woman. For the Catholic Church, this is a sacrament wherein the two are bound together under the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

From that perspective, "gay marriage" is not a valid concept.


Kukri's story about his kin being unable to function as next of kin underlines the problems associated with the absence of any clearly defined rights for non-traditional couples.


My preference would be for government to withdraw from marriage entirely, leaving it purely to religion. Government would then, ideally, sanction legal contracts between mutually consenting adults to share those certain privacy rights etc. that constitute the "secular" portion of a marriage contract. Government would sanction ONLY such contracts, and marriage in a church would not have this effect. As is the case now, a civil contract would need to be executed in addition to the ceremony itself.

[Koga No Goshi]

The term marriage goes way back. It has traditionally been defined, throughout Western culture, as the union of a man and woman. For the Catholic Church, this is a sacrament wherein the two are bound together under the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

From that perspective, "gay marriage" is not a valid concept.


Kukri's story about his kin being unable to function as next of kin underlines the problems associated with the absence of any clearly defined rights for non-traditional couples.


My preference would be for government to withdraw from marriage entirely, leaving it purely to religion. Government would then, ideally, sanction legal contracts between mutually consenting adults to share those certain privacy rights etc. that constitute the "secular" portion of a marriage contract. Government would sanction ONLY such contracts, and marriage in a church would not have this effect. As is the case now, a civil contract would need to be executed in addition to the ceremony itself.

I think everyone (who has participated here, at least) would be okay with that compromise. It really is, from a secular standpiont, the way things ought to work anyway.

However, don't you believe that a lot of people in the U.S. would view this as..... "dismantling marriage"? Or even destroying it? I am of course not saying that would be a rational or legally credible argument, but does anyone else think an awful lot of people would be making it to oppose the change?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The term marriage goes way back. It has traditionally been defined, throughout Western culture, as the union of a man and woman. For the Catholic Church, this is a sacrament wherein the two are bound together under the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

From that perspective, "gay marriage" is not a valid concept.


Kukri's story about his kin being unable to function as next of kin underlines the problems associated with the absence of any clearly defined rights for non-traditional couples.


My preference would be for government to withdraw from marriage entirely, leaving it purely to religion. Government would then, ideally, sanction legal contracts between mutually consenting adults to share those certain privacy rights etc. that constitute the "secular" portion of a marriage contract. Government would sanction ONLY such contracts, and marriage in a church would not have this effect. As is the case now, a civil contract would need to be executed in addition to the ceremony itself.

100% with you. This is one of the compromises that I would eagerly accept.

[Fragony]

Well part of my heritage didn't come from anywhere, and their democratic framework was a stronger influence upon the present-day U.S. Constitution than ancient Greece or ancient Rome. Ben Franklin openly cited their society and culture and government many times in various speeches.

You're going to quickly run out of arguments for dismissing anyone but the Puritans as being the founders of this country, Rhyfe.

If I said the native american traditions would be greatly enriched by butt-sex, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much would you agree?

[Koga No Goshi]

If I said the native american traditions would be greatly enriched by butt-sex, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much would you agree?

I would say that entire question is beside the point. How much is American culture enriched by Paris Hilton's sex video or Britney Spears' relationship with K-Fed? Or Elizabeth Taylor having what, six husbands? Or Woody Allen marrying his adopted daughter. Or Eminem singing a rap song about wanting to beat or strangle or kill his ex-wife, mother of his daughter? Yet these were all relationships or liaisons which had the right to avail themselves of legal rights extended from our government.

Point being, subjective judgments of a particular relationship's "worth", "morality", or "contribution to society" has NOTHING to do with extension of equal rights to everyone.

[Fragony]

Gimme. 0 being: hmm ok there are gay native americans get a tipi, 10 being: hiawatha dragged trough the streets with a buttplub jammed up tarred and feathered.

[Koga No Goshi]

Gimme. 0 being: hmm ok there are gay native americans get a tipi, 10 being: hiawatha dragged trough the streets with a buttplub jammed up tarred and feathered.

Read up on Native American cultures' attitudes towards alternative gender roles and sexualities before making statements about them. They were, at bare minimum, vastly more accepting and formally recognized than in contemporary Europe-- as a general statement, of course.

Several other cultures like Japan had all kinds of different levels of acceptance of what you would call "sexual deviance" today, before assimilating to western mindsets. Homosexuality had been encouraged both as a form of Buddhist worship and as an acceptable and positive act between samurai warriors. (You certainly won't see much of that in western-made movies about the samurai...)

Let's not forget Greece or Rome, either. I loved how in the movie "Troy", they changed Achilles' friend Patroclus into a "beloved cousin."

[Fragony]

Read up on Native American cultures' attitudes towards alternative gender roles and sexualities before making statements about them. They were, at bare minimum, vastly more accepting and formally recognized than in contemporary Europe-- as a general statement, of course.

Every culture does, molly bolly during victorian times, even Iran has a lifely gay-scene. Hiawatha and the elders dragged through the streets plugged so up so badly they cough up blood, by white men.

[Fragony]

Let's not forget Greece or Rome, either. I loved how in the movie "Troy", they changed Achilles' friend Patroclus into a "beloved cousin."

Troy huh Higly unlikely there ever even was a battle. But common how high in the scale, I think there should also be a 'put those feathers somewhere else' day, maybe a movie, Very big man, Spirited inside, about time we deal with native american traditions I say. Chow LOL

[Andres]

My preference would be for government to withdraw from marriage entirely, leaving it purely to religion. Government would then, ideally, sanction legal contracts between mutually consenting adults to share those certain privacy rights etc. that constitute the "secular" portion of a marriage contract. Government would sanction ONLY such contracts, and marriage in a church would not have this effect. As is the case now, a civil contract would need to be executed in addition to the ceremony itself.

Perfect solution

This is, in fact, how it goes in Belgium.

When I married my wife, I married her twice (), so to speak: 1) "for the law", i.e. for a state official (usually de "burgemeester" (mayor), 2) "for the Church", which was the Catholic Church in my case.

In Belgium, you are not allowed to marry "for the Church" before you have been married "for the law" and only the marriage "for the law" has legal consequences.

Gays are allowed to marry "for the law", but they can't (obviously) marry "for the Church" (at least, not for the Catholic Church).

There was some opposition before gays were allowed to marry, but nowadays, nobody seems to worry or even care about it

However, don't you believe that a lot of people in the U.S. would view this as..... "dismantling marriage"? Or even destroying it? I am of course not saying that would be a rational or legally credible argument, but does anyone else think an awful lot of people would be making it to oppose the change?

So what? Everybody will get used to it once it's there.

If I said the native american traditions would be greatly enriched by butt-sex, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much would you agree?

And what exactly does this have to do with the subject at hand?

[Fragony]

And what exactly does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Marriage is a tradition, it's between a man and a woman, they should keep their hands of it. In my humble opinion thousand years old traditions>buttsex.

[Andres]

Marriage is a tradition, it's between a man and a woman, they should keep their hands of it. In my humble opinion thousand years old traditions>buttsex.

Sharia is also tradition *

Is a static society that isn't able to evolve but always sticks to its' traditions, what you wish for?

*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is not my intention to derail this thread, I'm just taking a low blow at my dear friend Fragony

[Fragony]

Sharia is also tradition *

Is a static society that isn't able to evolve but always sticks to its' traditions, what you wish for?

*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is not my intention to derail this thread, I'm just taking a low blow at my dear friend Fragony

So is us not having sharia

It's not a society evolving, it's overstretching the goodwill there is.

[Andres]

So is us not having sharia

It's not a society evolving, it's overstretching the goodwill there is.

So, what exactly is so important about "marriage is between man and woman" that we should stick to it, no matter what and thus deprive gay couples from the possibility to get the same legal rights (and duties) as a married couple?

What's the ratio behind the tradition? How did it start and why should we stick to it nowadays?

What exactly makes it unthinkable to move past that tradition?

Do you like living in a democracy? If so, then why was the tradition of living under a King not worth keeping and why is the tradition of keeping marriage between man and woman worth keeping? What exactly makes it an absolute necessity to keep the tradition of "marriage - only between man and woman"?

[Ser Clegane]

To expand the question a little bit - how many of those here who are married have the feeling that the value of their marriage would be diminished by allowing homosexual couples to marry?

(NB: I am talking about the "legal" marriage of homosexuals here - not about marriage in church)

[Fragony]

Homosexuality is a condition, a defect. Same rights yes, same status no. Why do they want that in the first place how egocentric can you be to claim what is important to many.

^--for Andres

[Andres]

Homosexuality is a condition, a defect.

Well, I'm not a scientist and I'm not going into a scientific debate about that.

The more because it is not relevant to the question at hand.

Two people have a steady and long standing relationship and have built up something together and thus they decide that they want to add legal consequences to that relationship through marriage. If they are both men or both women, they can't have that. Whether being in love with a person of the same sex is a condition or not, the facts stay the same: two people want to marry, for pretty much the same reasons as a straight couple wants to marry, but they can't because they are gay. That's discrimination.

Same rights yes, same status no. Why do they want that in the first place how egocentric can you be to claim what is important to many.

^--for Andres

Yes, but why Fragony?

Why is the tradition of "marriage - only between man and woman" so important, so absolute that it can't be changed? What's the ratio behind the tradition? How did it start and why should we stick to it nowadays? What exactly makes it unthinkable to move past that tradition?

What's so important about that tradition that it justifies blatant discrimination between gay couples and straight couples?

To expand the question a little bit - how many of those here who are married have the feeling that the value of their marriage would be diminished by allowing homosexual couples to marry?

(NB: I am talking about the "legal" marriage of homosexuals here - not about marriage in church)

I don't see how my marriage is of less value because gays are allowed to marry

[Fragony]

Yes, but why Fragony?

Why is the tradition of "marriage - only between man and woman" so important, so absolute that it can't be changed? What's the ratio behind the tradition?

The realist in me says, if it works for a long time, it works. And it is not absolute at all, things always change but change isn't something that needs to be persuited change doesn't need that. How terrible is the life of homosexuals?

[Andres]

The realist in me says, if it works for a long time, it works. And it is not absolute at all, things always change but change isn't something that needs to be persuited change doesn't need that.

That's debatable.

But in this case, the change has already occurred: in modern western societies, gay couples have relationships out in the open nowadays. They live together, go on holidays as a couple, go to restaurants as a couple, buy a house together, build up savings together, buy a car/cars together, in general: they build up lives together in pretty much the same way as straight couples.

Also, our western civilisations have moved further to a phase where blatant discrimination is considered to be a big no-no.

Isn't it time for the laws applicable to marriage to follow those changes?

[Fragony]

That's debatable.

But in this case, the change has already occurred: in modern western societies, gay couples have relationships out in the open nowadays. They live together, go on holidays as a couple, go to restaurants as a couple, buy a house together, build up savings together, buy a car/cars together, in general: they build up lives together in pretty much the same way as straight couples.

Also, our western civilisations have moved further to a phase where blatant discrimination is considered to be a big no-no.

Isn't it time for the laws applicable to marriage to follow those changes?

Of course it is debatable, but imho 'why do'>'why not', especially since gays couples can lead the same life as normal couples. Why can't that be enough it's like taking a dump in someones garden despite having a toilet at home.

[Andres]

Of course it is debatable, but imho 'why do'>'why not', especially since gays couples can lead the same life as normal couples. Why can't that be enough it's like taking a dump in someones garden despite having a toilet at home.

If they can lead the same life as straight couples, then what is the point in denying them the possibility to marry?

Apart from their sexual desires, "they" are exactly the same as straight couples.

There is no justification for this particular case of discrimination.

To put it Fragony-style : non-discrimination>traditions. In other words: if tradition leads to blatant legal discrimination without justification, then we should get rid of the tradition.

[Fragony]

If they can lead the same life as straight couples, then what is the point in denying them the possibility to marry?

Apart from their sexual desires, "they" are exactly the same as straight couples.

There is no justification for this particular case of discrimination.

To put it Fragony-style : non-discrimination>traditions. In other words: if tradition leads to blatant legal discrimination without justification, then we should get rid of the tradition.

Because that would be intruding the perceptions of marriage others have, that is not theirs to claim. I am against legal discrimination because the state should be neutral, but it most of all should be bound. Speaking of the 'idea' of marriage says it all really. It's that, an idea. State is an accountant. That don't mix. No anal probes.

You should see my point as the state threading where it shouldn't, not homosexuality per se. Heck, I gave a friend of mine a full frontal last week to chase of the pizza guy, hilarious.

[yesdachi]

To expand the question a little bit - how many of those here who are married have the feeling that the value of their marriage would be diminished by allowing homosexual couples to marry?

(NB: I am talking about the "legal" marriage of homosexuals here - not about marriage in church)

I have been married for 13 years and I am ok with it. I don’t see a diminishing effect or a watering down of the meaning anymore than we get from the 50% divorce rate that already exists.

The only thing about gay marriage that bothers me is the same thing that bothers me about straight marriage. I don’t think a lot of people wait until they are ready and I don’t think a lot of people take it serious enough. I see infidelity as a big issue with a lot of gays I know. Perhaps it is a guy’s take on casual sex but I don’t think it is conducive of a long-term relationship.

[Lemur]

Married for twelve years, still on my first wife. I fail to see how gay marriage has any impact whatsoever on my marriage. Someone needs to explain the connection to me.

[Meneldil]

Well I believe the facts in the Bible (that the earth was created by God, that Adam and Eve were created in Eden etc), although there are times it is obvious that metaphors are being used (for example Jesus was not a branch).

I don't believe that the earth was created by God, nor that Adam and Eve were created in Heaven, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus indeed was a branch.
What do we do now ?

Oh and the whole 'sodomy = homosexuality/buttsex/sinful act' speech is rather ludicrous.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but
- lesbians don't necessarily engage into 'buttsex', yet they're homosexual (even though we all know that they're not *as* bad *as* male homosexuals, mostly because they're hot as hell, yada yada)
- heterosexual couples practice anal sex, everyday or night. Yeah, that is, even married people.

So please, if you have any argument against gay marriage, find something else than 'ZOMG sodomy is soooo horrible :-(' because this one makes you look stupid.

[KukriKhan]

I don't believe that the earth was created by God, nor that Adam and Eve were created in Heaven, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus indeed was a branch.
What do we do now ?

We stay on-topic about state-sanctioned gay marriage, and not spin-off on religion - which would require another thread.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The real question here seems to be whether people see male/female sexual relationships as special or worthy of note. The people for Gay marriage seem to think not - at least not anymore than a sexual relationship between any two people - while the people against think that they are very special and unique.

If you honestly don't think it is special I don't have another fundamental argument for you. It seems to be clear as day that male/female sexuality is so inherent and special that I can't believe that you are de-legitimizing it, but hey - we are all entitled to our own facts, huh?

The other question is about the courts and the increasingly heavy handed and legislative role that they play in government. CT is different because they dug their own grave, but many people would overturn bans on the federal level without the legal precedent that CT has. I think that this is pretty clear cut too, but that has never stopped awful positions from being held by the opposition.