Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Again, as we have learned from the legalization of gay marriage, even if the people of a state vote against it, it doesn't matter. It only takes a federal judge or two that agrees it should be legalized and it will be so.
How many Federal judges support the legality of polygamy?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Why does the government even have a hand in marriage? I mean, it started as a religious institution, what happened to separation of church and state?
They started giving tax-breaks, financial incentives, visitation rights, executor-of-estate and similar privileges to married people that unmarried people did not get.
That's why it's an Equality issue.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Again, as we have learned from the legalization of gay marriage, even if the people of a state vote against it, it doesn't matter. It only takes a federal judge or two that agrees it should be legalized and it will be so.
How many Federal judges support the legality of polygamy?
Admitted, it's a small thing right now, but look at how support for gay marriage grew in a twenty year time span, and I don't believe there were practicing marriages happening like there is with polygamy right now. I could pretty much take you on a ride around here and point out between here and Nevada several areas where it's being practiced.
My daughter's nine year old friend, whose mother was in a polygamist marriage, told us and our daughter as they played together that's the kind of union she wants to enter into.
Small things, but back in the 80's, how many of us seriously thought gay marriage would become a thing. Just about every argument against gay marriage and gays raising children we heard back then, when people bothered to talk about it, we are hearing about polygamy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/28 05:00:59
Religious people voting religious people into power who then pandered to the most vocal hard line religious people who then tried to run the state based on religious lines?
Admitted, it's a small thing right now, but look at how support for gay marriage grew in a twenty year time span, and I don't believe there were practicing marriages happening like there is with polygamy right now.
Just about every argument against gay marriage and gays raising children we heard back then, when people bothered to talk about it, we are hearing about polygamy.
What arguments are those?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/28 05:47:47
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Kilkrazy wrote: Human sacrifice started as a religious institution. Does that mean the government does not have the right to make laws about human sacrifice?
The reason gay marriage is now a thing is because the majority of the people have decided it should be legal, and acted through their government.
Well that simply isn't true.
Multiple states put it to a vote and the vote failed.
A group of 9 in black pajamas overturned those majorities.
Kilkrazy wrote: Human sacrifice started as a religious institution. Does that mean the government does not have the right to make laws about human sacrifice?
The reason gay marriage is now a thing is because the majority of the people have decided it should be legal, and acted through their government.
Well that simply isn't true.
Multiple states put it to a vote and the vote failed.
A group of 9 in black pajamas overturned those majorities.
and also 38 states had passed gay marriage previous to that, or had rulings that it violated their state constitutions. But yeah, you're totally right and raise a great point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/28 10:24:42
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Kilkrazy wrote: Human sacrifice started as a religious institution. Does that mean the government does not have the right to make laws about human sacrifice?
The reason gay marriage is now a thing is because the majority of the people have decided it should be legal, and acted through their government.
Well that simply isn't true.
Multiple states put it to a vote and the vote failed.
A group of 9 in black pajamas overturned those majorities.
Although I support equal rights in marriage he is completely correct. Time after time, it was voted down whenever it came to a vote.
Con: willfully subverted the will of the people to the tyranny of judges.
Pro: should a civil right be up to popular vote?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/28 10:56:17
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.
Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.
Ah, that's interesting on two points.
The first being that either the bible is either literally interpreted or not, it is either the living word of God or it's not, as no human being can legitimately decide which parts of it can or cannot be 'truth' as they are not God. No human being can say 'this part is entirely to be kept to and never deviated from' and 'this part was just for those times, we can do without it', either the entire thing is parable or it's literal.
The second point being that at no point whatsoever, did Christ mention homosexuality, at all. All the objection I've ever heard that quotes from the bible quotes from the old testament, if the teachings of Jesus are the only bits to pay attention to, then homosexuality is not sinful.
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.
Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ~ J.C.
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.
Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ~ J.C.
Yay for quoting Bible texts out of context!
When something is fulfilled it generally means it is no longer neccessary afterwards. Jesus did not abolish the Old Covenant, but he gave us a new one in its place.
Regardless, I maintain that those clamoring for equal marriage rights for homosexuals are hypocrites for not doing so for polygamists as well.
You're quite right. The form of non-harmful relationship that consenting adults choose to adopt is not the business of the state or people outside of the relationship.
Anyone who opposes polygamy but endorses any other form of consenting nonharmful relationship is indeed a hypocrite, as is any self termed 'Christian' who opposes gay marriage but has remarried, eaten pork, eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabric clothing or cut the hair at the temples of their heads...
I hope everyone voting no on this poll for reasons of their religious conviction has conformed to that, or they themselves are low in the sight of their God...
I mean, this is all well and good, save for the fact that the Old Testament isn't the focal point of most Christianity these days, and when it is used to teach, it is done so as parable. And If someone a little better versed in me can elaborate more, but I believe, biblically, the Old Covenant (old testament) was replaced by the new covenent (New testament) in a number of areas, including Paul and Matthew, but most explicitly when Jesus came.
Old testament superseded by gospel of Jesus.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ~ J.C.
Yay for quoting Bible texts out of context!
When something is fulfilled it generally means it is no longer neccessary afterwards. Jesus did not abolish the Old Covenant, but he gave us a new one in its place.
*read in the voice of Eeyore* Yeah a 3000 year old book that most of which was written hundreds of years after the fact and by word of mouth and then translated into many languages before the one we have today, and councils held thousands of years after the fact to see what is cannon and what is not, could have no problems in being misinterpreted.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/28 20:16:34
The first being that either the bible is either literally interpreted or not, it is either the living word of God or it's not, as no human being can legitimately decide which parts of it can or cannot be 'truth' as they are not God. No human being can say 'this part is entirely to be kept to and never deviated from' and 'this part was just for those times, we can do without it', either the entire thing is parable or it's literal.
The second point being that at no point whatsoever, did Christ mention homosexuality, at all. All the objection I've ever heard that quotes from the bible quotes from the old testament, if the teachings of Jesus are the only bits to pay attention to, then homosexuality is not sinful.
Again..you show an unsurprising ignorance of Christian theology. Your posts may as well be titled the gospel according to MeanGreenstompa.
I recommend you actually pick up a book on the basics of Christian Theology and read them,(beyond people like Christopher Hitchens and his ilk). You might learn something beyond...what you keep parroting.
The first being that either the bible is either literally interpreted or not, it is either the living word of God or it's not, as no human being can legitimately decide which parts of it can or cannot be 'truth' as they are not God. No human being can say 'this part is entirely to be kept to and never deviated from' and 'this part was just for those times, we can do without it', either the entire thing is parable or it's literal.
The second point being that at no point whatsoever, did Christ mention homosexuality, at all. All the objection I've ever heard that quotes from the bible quotes from the old testament, if the teachings of Jesus are the only bits to pay attention to, then homosexuality is not sinful.
Again..you show an unsurprising ignorance of Christian theology. Your posts may as well be titled the gospel according to MeanGreenstompa.
I recommend you actually pick up a book on the basics of Christian Theology and read them,(beyond people like Christopher Hitchens and his ilk). You might learn something beyond...what you keep parroting.
GG
I have a better idea, instead of telling me 'your ignorance is showing and you're wrong', why don't you explain how and why I am wrong.
Please, do feel free to demonstrate to me, here and now, why 'gay marriage bad because bible, shrimp and pulled pork sammich good despite bible!'...
If I am an Athiest, and I am married to an Athiest, according to the logic of many of the people here, the State should not recognize my marriage? Just because I happened to marry a women, you would look at me and say "that's cool."? NO, that argument is invalid. You don't have to be a homosexual, they do not have to be heterosexual. But you do have to stop discriminating.
In Oklahoma, they are attempting to pass a law that allows owners to not serve homosexuals. Whats next, quit serving black people? Where do we draw the line. We are going backward in society, not forward. For what once was the greatest nation on this planet, one I gave my sanity and more than a few ounces of blood for, I resent the the implication that anyone born on this country is of less importance than anyone else. You do not have to like someone, but you will accept that in this country they have "certian unalienable rights." If you would take those rights away from the LGBT community, then you would renounce the emancipation proclamation as well. You can't be only partially prejudice, you are or you are not.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
wow welp I guess I should add my 2 cents to the topic.... as a gay man in a one of the first states to vote gay marrige into legality (yay maine) I am very much pro gay marriage
Truthfully I just dont understand what the big deal is. people say religion, well that's a two way street since there are churches that want to preform same sex marriages, People saying that churches, ministers will be forced to preform them... no no its not that either. as far as I've found no church has been forced to preform a same sex ritual, All cases people point to are of business's claiming its there right since they happen to be christian to refuse. that's different. and then there are the people saying that government should not be in the marriage business at all. and I rather agree, except for the 212 (i think thats the number) distinct rights that are conferred by federal and state government to every one who gets a wedding be that a quicky drive through vegas wedding or one with 10,000 guests inside a mega church. myself I would have stripped marriages of all government rights, any church can marry anyone they want with in the tenants of there scriptures, but that marriage has no standing during legal matters, that is simply a matter of faith. you then take all thoses rights and put them into civil partnerships, civil unions, and that's a government institution defined strictly by the law with no religious baggage and something any 2 people could enter into. But that would never happen since all those people who are already married would never stand for it so insteade of all that they extended civil marriages to gay people. Hurray and the world did not end. But people can and will disagree and that okay to
well thats my 2 bits.
And on a second note I wanted to say thanks to every one on this forum. In my journeys round the interwebs, I've run into several different gaming sites. And I must say this one is very refreshing, some of those sites blocked my choice of name as offensive (not sure why who is offended by bunnys) in some derogatory slurrs for homosexuals, or other groups would get tossed around willy nilly. and you wouldn't belive the ridicual I'd take on FPS war sim sites when the gay man states he'd rather not fly one of the planes but was a skilled Tailgunner.
hell no one even ridicules me for not playing the game just loving the ascetic and building props based off it
The first being that either the bible is either literally interpreted or not, it is either the living word of God or it's not, as no human being can legitimately decide which parts of it can or cannot be 'truth' as they are not God. No human being can say 'this part is entirely to be kept to and never deviated from' and 'this part was just for those times, we can do without it', either the entire thing is parable or it's literal.
The second point being that at no point whatsoever, did Christ mention homosexuality, at all. All the objection I've ever heard that quotes from the bible quotes from the old testament, if the teachings of Jesus are the only bits to pay attention to, then homosexuality is not sinful.
Again..you show an unsurprising ignorance of Christian theology. Your posts may as well be titled the gospel according to MeanGreenstompa.
I recommend you actually pick up a book on the basics of Christian Theology and read them,(beyond people like Christopher Hitchens and his ilk). You might learn something beyond...what you keep parroting.
GG
I have a better idea, instead of telling me 'your ignorance is showing and you're wrong', why don't you explain how and why I am wrong.
Please, do feel free to demonstrate to me, here and now, why 'gay marriage bad because bible, shrimp and pulled pork sammich good despite bible!'...
MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...
And as far as Jesus didn't specifically say that homosexuality is a sin, he also didn't talk about rape, incest, or pedophilia either. The whole Jesus didn't talk about "X" argument, therefore he doesn't care about it is fallacious.
MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...
GG
Where does it state that the dietary laws are temporary?
We've been through this several times, the dietary restrictions and ritual laws (laws for dress and hair and such), God ordained specifically for the Israelites, and were lifted during the apostolic era.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary laws and ritual laws are different than the Moral Laws, such as the 10 commandments, and the other moral laws ( such as the prohibition against homosexuality), which were never lifted.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary and ritual laws were assigned specifically to anyone who was an Israelite, and to take that out of context like the modern atheists(and some cults) do to try and say that Christians should also practice the dietary and ritual laws shows a fundamental ignorance of Christian theology and the Bible.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/29 11:55:55
their is nothing wrong with two people wanting to be happy and get married..who cares if its not natural, the worlds over populated anyways..the bible beaters vs the smart people will cause this thread to crash and burn
Man fears what he does not understand- Anton LaVey
MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...
GG
Where does it state that the dietary laws are temporary?
We've been through this several times, the dietary restrictions and ritual laws (laws for dress and hair and such), God ordained specifically for the Israelites, and were lifted during the apostolic era.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary laws and ritual laws are different than the Moral Laws, such as the 10 commandments, and the other moral laws ( such as the prohibition against homosexuality), which were never lifted.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary and ritual laws were assigned specifically to anyone who was an Israelite, and to take that out of context like the modern atheists(and some cults) do to try and say that Christians should also practice the dietary and ritual laws shows a fundamental ignorance of Christian theology and the Bible.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
You do realise that there is more to Christian theology than just the Bible, right?
As Jesus said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus came to fulfill. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New.
Which indeed means that the old Mosaic laws do not apply to Christians and those who claim otherwise have a horrible lack of knowledge about the Christian religion.
Crimson Heretic wrote: the bible beaters vs the smart people will cause this thread to crash and burn
I do hope you're not implying that devout Christians cannot also be smart people. Or indeed, that all devout Christians are against gay marriage.
See, you're trying to use people logic. DM uses Mandelogic, which we've established has 2+2=quack. - Aerethan
Putin.....would make a Vulcan Intelligence officer cry. - Jihadin
AFAIK, there is only one world, and it is the real world. - Iron_Captain
DakkaRank Comment: I sound like a Power Ranger.
TFOL and proud. Also a Forge World Fan.
I should really paint some of my models instead of browsing forums.
You do realise that there is more to Christian theology than just the Bible, right?
As Jesus said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus came to fulfill. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New.
Which indeed means that the old Mosaic laws do not apply to Christians and those who claim otherwise have a horrible lack of knowledge about the Christian religion.
It doesn't say that, how do you know that's what it means? That's conjecture. That is your interpretation of the English translation, or it's someone else's you've latched onto. How in heaven or earth do you or any mortal get to tell me what Jesus said 'actually means' something else...?
Are you the risen Christ? I doubt it.
'It says this, but what it actually means is this' on the one hand, then it's 'but the bible says this is wrong' on the other.
Such hypocrisy, it's almost as though certain elements claiming themselves Christian think they can 'interpret' the Bible to allow them to act in one way whilst denouncing others acting in another, as though it's literal for one man's 'sin' but entirely allegorical for another.
I would remind you of Matthew 5:19, you're either in or your out.
Really you people grasping at straws and seeking evasive measures to excuse yourselves from one part of the good book whilst damning others for another sound far less like people of God and far more like lawyers pawing over the small print and seeking loopholes or 'interpretations'...
Keep wriggling, it makes you look terrible. And hilarious.
Calm down everyone. The words you are typing are unlikely to alter anyone's interpretations of scripture.
What they are typing needn't change your beliefs either.
Oh, and it is also fine to be upset with me- Moses said you shouldn't suffer folks like me to live.
Although on the topic of same sex marriage, I believe Jesus did say 'love one another'.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
Crimson Heretic wrote: the bible beaters vs the smart people will cause this thread to crash and burn
I do hope you're not implying that devout Christians cannot also be smart people. Or indeed, that all devout Christians are against gay marriage.
No, a bible beater is different to a devout christian. A bible beater is somebody who gives up the job of actual moral reasoning and supplementing it with the black and white rules of their interpretation of various holy texts, which is often either selective or simply misinformed. They're the sort of people who would say "The bible says X, therefore it is/isn't thus" as opposed to somebody who would cite the bible in their reasoning but not simply follow what they understand of it without any judgement.
MGS..I have already "briefly" explained that the dietary laws were for the Israelites during the old testament dispensation....not the Christian, and that the moral laws are transcendent. I don't mind having an exchange with you through PM. This is sort of off topic.? But maybe not...
GG
Where does it state that the dietary laws are temporary?
We've been through this several times, the dietary restrictions and ritual laws (laws for dress and hair and such), God ordained specifically for the Israelites, and were lifted during the apostolic era.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary laws and ritual laws are different than the Moral Laws, such as the 10 commandments, and the other moral laws ( such as the prohibition against homosexuality), which were never lifted.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
generalgrog wrote: The dietary and ritual laws were assigned specifically to anyone who was an Israelite, and to take that out of context like the modern atheists(and some cults) do to try and say that Christians should also practice the dietary and ritual laws shows a fundamental ignorance of Christian theology and the Bible.
Where in the Bible is this stated?
You do realise that there is more to Christian theology than just the Bible, right?
As Jesus said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus came to fulfill. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New.
Which indeed means that the old Mosaic laws do not apply to Christians and those who claim otherwise have a horrible lack of knowledge about the Christian religion.
If the new testament replaced the old one, doesn't that mean there's less than the bible?
Also, does fulfilment mean automatically removing the old? I fulfil several things, but that doesn't mean they stop being there. I fulfil the requirements to be alive, therefore I am alive. The requirements don't disappear; if I stop existing within those parameters, I am no longer alive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/29 17:50:41
BlapBlapBlap: bringing idiocy and mischief where it should never set foot since 2011.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:What sort of idiot quotes themselves in their sigs? Who could possibly be that arrogant?
