|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,171
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,171 |
Quote:
The politicians wouldn't have it any other way.
That's probably a whole lot closer to The Truth than most of us really want to consider, jfan.
Now, j/c for general conversation:
When the DOMA was signed into law, I was upset, to say the least. I thought that it was a calculated move on WJ Clinton's part to garner another term in office- and I hated that it was so political in nature. It was also too reminiscent of seeing state and federal law that legally upheld the oppression of My Own Family- for hundreds of years. To see it visited upon other American citizens in any other way, was an eye-opener- to say the least. I saw it then- as I do now still- as an overt act to suppress an entire group of Americans' rights to live their lives with a reasonable expectation of equality with other Americans.
In the mind of a moral, just man- how could this be deemed acceptable, let alone legal? If said man was the beneficiary of the hard work done by his forbears, how could he not stand up against oppression/suppression of his his fellow citizens without being a hypocrite?
____________
I'll freely admit to my "Angry Young Black Man" persona during my early adulthood, without apologies. I made my stands/said my piece/paid my dues. I learned from Life's lessons. At the same time, I'll openly embrace my "Angry Gray Man," as I support this newest move in America's evolution.
When I think about the 400+ year history of This Country, it's still very hard to believe that I am the very first generation of My Family who was able to legally vote in all 50 states. Most of My Family has been north of the Mason/Dixon Line for generations, so the rights they learned to take for granted were not always shared by their Family 'Down South'.... It's only been during my lifetime that Federal Law allows Me & Mine to live wherever, and expect the same rights everywhere. Think about this: I was almost a Jr.Hi student when it became legal for My Grandfather to vote anywhere in America.
In America.
In 400 years of occupancy and 237 years of Official Governance, My Bunch has only been considered 'totally legit' for a mere 48 years (...think about those numbers for a minute... then come along on this ride with me-).
It's now 2013.
A new group of Americans have just now gained legal rights that My Grandparents sacrificed for me to get. White People. Hispanic People. People from other continents. ALL of them have a shot at full rights that were only a dream for some, just 3 generations ago.
3 generations.
Less than 75 years.
How can I not be happy for them, without being a total hypocrite? How can I not be happy for them, and yet sad for us all... that Some Americans will have spent every share of their energy to keep other Americans from enjoying the same freedoms and rights that are taken for granted by so many others?
Any day that America can break down another convention that limits the rights of any of its citizens is a good day, IMHO.
There comes a time when every nation must eventually grow up. We might just be living in The Times where it's happening for our nation. Those times will no doubt be very tumultuous.... but also very cool, at the same time- because as we stumble along- we're making history.
For me, this issue has never been about religious views/practice. It's always been about the rights of Fellow Americans.
And until we're all truly free- none of us us has truly achieved 'freedom.'
.02,
Clemdawg.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,719
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,719 |
*Standing ovation for Clem*
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,450
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,450 |
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I don't see a difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Can you expound upon what differences you see?
One involves two people.
The other involves three or more people.
Don't take this wrong, but who cares? I mean if a couple of women all want to marry the same man or if several men want to be married to each other or several women want to be married to each other, what business is it of ours?
Certainly, I don't understand any government involvement in marriage. Federal, state or local.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Personally, I don't care and it is none of my business. If it were up to me, I'd say go for it, but you'd have to upend an entire system to do it.
If someone found a way to make that work, I'd be all for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
Personally, I don't care and it is none of my business. If it were up to me, I'd say go for it, but you'd have to upend an entire system to do it.
Which is essentially the case that was made before the Court. Religion had nothing to do with it. It was about the interest of the state in marriage and the decision to sanction an institution that has been in the experiment phase for only a handful of years. And since there is no definitive evidence one way or the other how that institution might affect our society, the argument basically came down to caution. According to Cooper, if it turns out that gay marriage is in the interest of the state, then the state will have no reason to refuse.
[  to Nelson for reading the transcript.]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,445 |
Quote:
Once more, a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, is in no way consistent with the traditional, legal, and or religious definition of the word. You have to change the meaning of the word entirely and completely in order to make it apply to a gay couple. There is no marriage between a gay couple ... or at least there wasn't until courts in certain states changed the meaning of the word to make it something completely and totally different than what it has ever been before.
Religion and equal rights are separate issues. As best as I can tell, gay marriage in no way stops or prevents anyone from keeping their religion the way they see fit. It has no impact on religion.
Traditions? Well separate bathrooms, businesses and rights for other people and minorities in our nation weren't traditional before they were changed either. Holiday traditions have changed over time as well. I don't see people so up in arms over that?
But you keep trying to tie it into religion. That's false. You keep trying to say civil unions would have solved this, but how?
People still wouldn't have the same rights in terms of Social Security, marital tax status, health care coverage as a family and many rights that other married people have.
To me, gay marriage puts gay couples that wish to be married on equal footing in terms of benefits with other couples.
If people really looked at the Bible it also says things like "Judge ye not lest ye also be judged". Each on of us are judged on what we do, not on what others do. Trying to inflict our beliefs on others or deny others their rights is something I have never believed in.
When it comes to Sodom and Gommora, Lott and his family were spared. So what others do in no way impacts you. That's why I don't see how people who profess to be Christians seem so outraged by such laws.
I'd say if one spent as much time looking inward at themselves and their household as they do others, their lives would be far better for it.
Trying to use some moral high ground in an attempt to deny people who believe differently than us the same benefits the rest of us enjoy and have a right to just seems wrong to me.
JMHO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337 |
Quote:
Trying to use some moral high ground
so-called "moral" high ground ;-)
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Can someone defending same sex marriage present a good argument as to why we shouldn't legally allow same sex family members to marry?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Can someone defending same sex marriage present a good argument as to why we shouldn't legally allow same sex family members to marry?
I'm pretty sure you already can in Rhode Island.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337 |
Quote:
Can someone defending same sex marriage present a good argument as to why we shouldn't legally allow same sex family members to marry?
Because then we'd have to allow hetero family members to marry, and genetics says that is a no-no until you are 'n' places removed in relation.
That said - as recently as the 1950's and 60's, it wasn't even remotely unheard of for cousins to marry. I'm assuming that you meant siblings, however.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone defending same sex marriage present a good argument as to why we shouldn't legally allow same sex family members to marry?
Because then we'd have to allow hetero family members to marry, and genetics says that is a no-no until you are 'n' places removed in relation.
That said - as recently as the 1950's and 60's, it wasn't even remotely unheard of for cousins to marry. I'm assuming that you meant siblings, however.
So you're going to disallow two brothers who love each other very much and want to start a life together in marriage because another scenario exists that is causing a disparate impact on their potential lives together?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone defending same sex marriage present a good argument as to why we shouldn't legally allow same sex family members to marry?
I'm pretty sure you already can in Rhode Island.
More than that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone defending same sex marriage present a good argument as to why we shouldn't legally allow same sex family members to marry?
Because then we'd have to allow hetero family members to marry, and genetics says that is a no-no until you are 'n' places removed in relation.
That said - as recently as the 1950's and 60's, it wasn't even remotely unheard of for cousins to marry. I'm assuming that you meant siblings, however.
So you're going to disallow two brothers who love each other very much and want to start a life together in marriage because another scenario exists that is causing a disparate impact on their potential lives together?
Yup. I'm also not going to let you marry your favorite squirrel... no matter how much you beg while making cute jokes about sharing "nuts" with him. 
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I predicted pedophilia by page five. So far, it's looking good... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Pretty sure you can marry your niece or your nephew in Rhode Island, but I think there has to be religious elements required.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone defending same sex marriage present a good argument as to why we shouldn't legally allow same sex family members to marry?
Because then we'd have to allow hetero family members to marry, and genetics says that is a no-no until you are 'n' places removed in relation.
That said - as recently as the 1950's and 60's, it wasn't even remotely unheard of for cousins to marry. I'm assuming that you meant siblings, however.
So you're going to disallow two brothers who love each other very much and want to start a life together in marriage because another scenario exists that is causing a disparate impact on their potential lives together?
Yup. I'm also not going to let you marry your favorite squirrel... no matter how much you beg while making cute jokes about sharing "nuts" with him.
How dare you try and deprive me of good material! I'll have to go to some sort of ancillary Chippendale joke that just won't have the same Bang so to speak.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,233
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,233 |
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone defending same sex marriage present a good argument as to why we shouldn't legally allow same sex family members to marry?
Because then we'd have to allow hetero family members to marry, and genetics says that is a no-no until you are 'n' places removed in relation.
That said - as recently as the 1950's and 60's, it wasn't even remotely unheard of for cousins to marry. I'm assuming that you meant siblings, however.
so called "genetic high ground" argument.... 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone defending same sex marriage present a good argument as to why we shouldn't legally allow same sex family members to marry?
Because then we'd have to allow hetero family members to marry, and genetics says that is a no-no until you are 'n' places removed in relation.
That said - as recently as the 1950's and 60's, it wasn't even remotely unheard of for cousins to marry. I'm assuming that you meant siblings, however.
So you're going to disallow two brothers who love each other very much and want to start a life together in marriage because another scenario exists that is causing a disparate impact on their potential lives together?
Yup. I'm also not going to let you marry your favorite squirrel... no matter how much you beg while making cute jokes about sharing "nuts" with him.
How dare you try and deprive me of good material! I'll have to go to some sort of ancillary Chippendale joke that just won't have the same Bang so to speak.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Just to play devil's advocate (pun intended), if one was to believe the story of creation, then there was a lot of inbreeding in the beginning.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337 |
Quote:
Just to play devil's advocate (pun intended), if one was to believe the story of creation, then there was a lot of inbreeding in the beginning.
Which commonly leads to developmental retardation issues. Combine that with "survival of the fittest" principles and that means that we are simply the best retards in our collective family tree.
And yes, the Bible is very clear on approving of immediate family getting it on.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Well, they do say we only use like 10% of our brains...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
I predicted pedophilia by page five.
So far, it's looking good...
I have to say they are getting better. Bestiality used to be around by page three.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
Nor have we had mentions of toasters yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Mantis, since you are apparently the only other one interested in accurate, factual information, critique the analysis I gave.
Most of the rest of you, just continue on as before. No need to clutter your minds with information that would be useless to you. Oh, and the next time you want to criticize some politician for signing a bill without reading it, look in the mirror.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
I admit that I should have read the damn bill.  That's Mibad, definitely.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Is self-righteousness included in any of these bills?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
First, it is not a bill, second, since it pretty much agrees with what I have been saying, I find it Self-Rightous, yes.
Instead of arguing about a decision, what I am doing involves the actual, highly qualified arguments made before the people who MADE that decision, and their comments during that presentation. These would be the people who have the power to make gay marriage the law of the land, or ban it altogether.
The transcript was linked very early on. I had hoped that at least one or two people would take the time to read it, but I should have known better.
Most of you have no clue what they did or why they did it.
I pretty much gave you the Cliff's Notes version earlier. Next time I'll try to use more daffodils and rainbows.
Last edited by Nelson37; 06/28/13 02:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337 |
Quote:
Is self-righteousness included in any of these bills?
That comes free with citizenship... which now extends to several million new people.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,450
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,450 |
Quote:
Personally, I don't care and it is none of my business. If it were up to me, I'd say go for it, but you'd have to upend an entire system to do it.
If someone found a way to make that work, I'd be all for it.
That's where I think we may differ. I don't think the system needs up ended at all.
Everything is in place. Just stop telling people who they can and can't marry..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I don't care and it is none of my business. If it were up to me, I'd say go for it, but you'd have to upend an entire system to do it.
If someone found a way to make that work, I'd be all for it.
That's where I think we may differ. I don't think the system needs up ended at all.
Everything is in place. Just stop telling people who they can and can't marry..
How is everything in place for marriages of polygamy? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
Quote:
Most of you have no clue what they did or why they did it.
Well then it is a good thing we have you to look out for us . What would we do without you ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Continue being ignorant and poorly informed? Not saying many of you won't do it anyway.
It's a burden, but I like to stay busy.
Current count of those who actually read the transcript.............2
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,450
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,450 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I don't care and it is none of my business. If it were up to me, I'd say go for it, but you'd have to upend an entire system to do it.
If someone found a way to make that work, I'd be all for it.
That's where I think we may differ. I don't think the system needs up ended at all.
Everything is in place. Just stop telling people who they can and can't marry..
How is everything in place for marriages of polygamy?
Married people have rights, correct? what's the difference between a marriage between a woman and man, or a woman and woman or a man and a man or two women, or three women or four women and a man or 1,2 or more men and one woman or some other combination of that mix.
Rights don't change unless we make laws that exclude any one of those combinations. Therefore, eliminate laws that define marriage by gender or number of partners and guess what, its just like you and your wife and me and my wife..
again it's hard for me to understand why any government, be they local, state or fed should dictate who can marry whom or for that matter, how many parties can be involved in the marriage.
Take away the laws that say no you can't marry who or however many you want and everything else is in place.....
The ONLY law I'd put in place is a law that refers to polygamy.. All parties Involved must consent to the arrangement.
Otherwise, it's not polygamy. it's Bigamy. for instance, a guy married to 2 different women without them being aware of each other and consenting to the arrangement.. That's bigamy.... That I would hope remains illegal.
And only because the practice is deceptive.
Does that cover it?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
what's the difference between a marriage between a woman and man, or a woman and woman or a man and a man or two women, or three women or four women and a man or 1,2 or more men and one woman or some other combination of that mix.
If you don't see one, remind me to ask your for a job with health benefits if I ever become a polygamist.
You've got a family plan, right? 
Quote:
Take away the laws that say no you can't marry who or however many you want and everything else is in place.....
No, it isn't.
Again, there is a whole system designed around the rights and benefits of a married couple. If you make it more than a couple, then most of those things don't really work, do they?
Do insurance policies cover all spouses? Do I get tax deductions for every spouse? Am I able to write off gifts for every spouse, or am I just limited to what everyone is afforded for one spouse? And so on and so forth...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Read either one of the transcript or the summary I gave and you will have your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
Mantis, since you are apparently the only other one interested in accurate, factual information, critique the analysis I gave.
I think you have analyzed the argument well. I'm now curious what you and others think about this concept of the state's interest in marriage because this seems to be where religion legitimately finds its way back into the issue. Is there a limiting principle conditioning the state's interest? Let's just go ahead and put all of the possible marriages on the table now for the sake of finding this limiting principle. As the argument goes, if the state allows gay people to marry, then it must allow people to marry children and animals as well.
Now, it is my contention that there is only one way to find out if a type of marriage is in the state's interest--empirical verification. As Cooper argued, gay marriage has been happening for several years now, and this is the most reliable way to determine our legal standards; i.e., watch the experiment in one or more states to see its effects and if it is in the interest of the other states to follow suit. But if this is the only way to verify the effects of a policy and thus the state's interest in the policy, then doesn't that mean we must allow people to marry animals and children in order to find out if it is in the state's interest to sanction such marriages? I doubt anyone would support this procedure. And so, in the absence of empirically verifiable evidence, the only source for a limiting principle must be moral first. Therefore, to argue that religious beliefs are illegitimate in determining how the institution of marriage will be administered makes as much sense as to say that secular moral beliefs about the equality of heterosexual and homosexual marriages are illegitimate. Everything is reduced to competing moral beliefs, and while we can argue about which moral beliefs are better, what we cannot logically do is dismiss a certain type of moral belief from the outset by claiming that its source is defective.
So, how do we decide between competing moral beliefs at the level of society? If we were ruled by a tyrant or an aristocracy, this wouldn't be an issue. But since we govern ourselves by the rule of democracy, the only thing to be done is see where the moral beliefs of the majority take us. You can agitate for your minority position all you want, but you cannot stop the democratic determination of what is moral for a society. I must admit I often find this notion disturbing, but there is no alternative. So, on this issue, I say let the people decide, and if you find yourself in the minority, you have a choice to make. What is your limit? What society will you consent to live in? How far will you press your minority position? To the extent of putting the stability of your society at risk? If you won't go that far, then in the end your moral beliefs about what society should be are irrelevant in the face of the democratic beast. Once you are in the minority, your moral beliefs are only good for interesting conversation insofar as the moral direction of your society is concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,450
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,450 |
Quote:
Can someone defending same sex marriage present a good argument as to why we shouldn't legally allow same sex family members to marry?
I'm not really defending same sex marriage, but what I'm saying is that I don't believe it's my business who marries whom.
having said that:
Outside of the risks involved with the birth of a child, I don't see much of an issue that I need to stick my nose into...
I've seen where cousins have married.. I'd think it was pretty weird if a siblings (regardless of gender) got married. again, outside of the health risks for children that may come out of that relationship,, I don't see it as my business. but yeah, I'd think it was damned weird.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145 |
Quote:
Quote:
'Man shall not lie with man as with Woman'.
Leviticus 18:22
You know what else is in Leviticus says your shouldn't do?
Sorry this has taken so long to respond to, been busy as all get out.
12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)
If you would've cared to take this in context you would notice that the people of Israel were about to meet the God of The Universe, also (and this is opinion I must say) these verses don't appear in the passages where the 'Laws' do so I wouldn't count this as something you can tout as 'law'.
14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics wouldn't you say?) (10:9)
Same passage, this isn't talking about the 'Tabernacle', God Himself descended on Mt. Sinai to meet with the people of Israel.
15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)
Dietary and safety regulations, no biggie far as I can tell. These kinds of things sometimes had spiritual symbolism (I can't tell you what, but God usually put these types of restrictions on things because they couldn't tell if they were cooked well enough to be eaten safely. Kind of interesting that pork is on this list and we know what happens nowadays when undercooked pork is consumed don't we? Do you suppose they knew this at the time of the writing of Leviticus? I highly doubt it.
17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12) (What no shrimp, oysters, or lobster?)
20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)
21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42) (Poor biologists)
Dietary and safety regulations, no biggie far as I can tell. These kinds of things sometimes had spiritual symbolism (I can't tell you what, but God usually put these types of restrictions on things because they couldn't tell if they were cooked well enough to be eaten safely. Kind of interesting that pork is on this list and we know what happens nowadays when undercooked pork is consumed don't we? Do you suppose they knew this at the time of the writing of Leviticus? I highly doubt it.
23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
This kept dad at home caring for his wife and newborn.
24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
Higher maintenance? I dunno.
36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
Hygiene. Sucks I know.
42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) (Where's the efficiency in that?)
43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
These were to be left for the poor.
49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
You really have a problem with this?
53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
What does the rest of this verse say? 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' You're cheating here.
54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) (like shirt you and I are wearing? )
Ya got me here, perhaps this is where the Marine Corps got the regulation that you don't mix your wool uniform with your polyester?
55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19) (Oh noooo don't take away Mules)
Got me here too, although I don't believe mules were cross bread otherwise Christ wouldn't have been riding one into Jerusalem the week before the Crucifixion.
56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) (Poor farmers)
I rent a house in the middle of a field. In the 6 1/2 years I've been here with my family I have yet to see more than one species of plant (other than the occasional weed {or tare as the Bible puts it}) come out of the ground. I'm going to guess that this had to do with some yet undiscovered agricultural science.
58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most trees probably take that long to produce fruit, perhaps The Lord was trying to save the trees 'strength' as it grew to produce better fruit? 'Nother guess about another yet undiscovered agricultural science.
60. Trimming your beard (19:27) (There goes the military and well really anybody who shaves)
Guess I'm outta luck too then. I think this had to do with not looking like the other nations and being set apart.
61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
See the above comment.
62. Getting tattoos (19:28)
I'm guessing that if God wanted you painted, he'd have done it himself.
65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
Better read that back, it says 'Thou SHALT rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord.' It doesn't say NOT TO STAND.
72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
Geez, God can't give you a day off without you complainin' about it?
75. Selling land permanently (25:23) (There goes real estate)
Did you just copy and paste all this without doing any reading? 'The land shall not be sold forever: FOR THE LAND IS MINE; for you are strangers and sojourners with me.' This is a reminder of who is God, and who is NOT.
Now do you really want to keep relying on Leviticus?
Yes, as a matter of fact I do.
Last edited by MrTed; 07/06/13 08:52 PM.
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM
my two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
Yes, as a matter of fact I do.
You missed the point. It's irrelevant what the purpose of the individual rules are, I could care less for the reasons for the rules. The point is how many of those other laws you are breaking yet still you stand on the pulpit. In other words it's the hypocrisy of yelling from a soapbox that Leviticus 18: 22 is the law and gay people are damned but then you yourself are breaking several of laws (trimming your beard, cutting your hair at the edges, shaving, clothing,). It's nothing more than hypocrisy. Now If you don't mind being a hypocrite keep on quoting Leviticus.
By the way a mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, as a matter of fact I do.
You missed the point. It's irrelevant what the purpose of the individual rules are, I could care less for the reasons for the rules. The point is how many of those other laws you are breaking yet still you stand on the pulpit. In other words it's the hypocrisy of yelling from a soapbox that Leviticus 18: 22 is the law and gay people are damned but then you yourself are breaking several of laws (trimming your beard, cutting your hair at the edges, shaving, clothing,). It's nothing more than hypocrisy. Now If you don't mind being a hypocrite keep on quoting Leviticus.
By the way a mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.
Yup.
You're either all-in, or you're selectively choosing.
If you're all-in, you're nuts.
If you're selectively choosing ... is it really sacred?
In my opinion, the character of Jesus Christ was more concerned with the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Victory For Gay Marriage
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
