Ashamed to be Texan - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/09/2005 11:32:31 PM · #277

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

First Ron, is this the only scripture that refers to homosexuality?
Secondly, from the passage you quoted above, it appears that god used "unnatural relations" as punishment. Is the Bible saying that all people who have homosexual relations are being punished for some wrong done to god? Are there not good homosexual Christians, or is that an oxymoron?

Those are excellent questions. I'll try my best to respond.

Another scripture ( new testament ) comes to mind.
Jude 1:7 refers back to Sodom and Gomorrah thusly:
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
The reference here to "strange flesh" is in all likelihood referring to homosexual activities.

God doesn't "use" unnatural relations as punishment. Just as an earthly father, when his child steadfastly refuses to heed his warnings, says "Fine, do what you want - and suffer the consequences", so scripture says that, when they refused to listen, God "gave them over" to their OWN lusts, - and the punishment was a consequence of their OWN doing.

Are homosexuals being punished for some wrongdoing? No more so than those who dishonor their parents, gossip, or any of the other sins listed. Do they perhaps suffer graver consequences? Perhaps, but if they do it is because their lifestyle puts them at higher risk.

The very term "good Christian" is an oxymoron. Even Christ asked one of his followers "Why callest thou me "good". There is NONE good, save God." Though in the modern vernacular, a homosexual Christian is no better nor any worse than a heterosexual Christian. However, scripture says that the believers should shun ANY Christian who wilfully continues sinning openly after having been confronted with his/her sin. NOTE: believers are NOT told to shun NON-believers who live openly in sin - only to shun believers who remain unrepentant.

Note: the preceeding, if not directly quoted from scripture, are my opinions, and/or my interpretations of scripture.

SJCarter

Canon EOS-7D

11/09/2005 11:41:14 PM · #278

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by SJCarter:
And let's continue to cut off the hands of those who steal, condemn those who dance, and any woman who speaks back to her husband. After all, that's in the Bible too, right?!?

EDIT: And, yes, I've read it from cover to cover multiple times...

You may have READ it, but I don't believe you remember it.
a) Nowhere in the Bible, to my knowledge, is there any reference to cutting off the hands of one who steals
b) Nowhere in the Bible, to my knowledge, is there any condemnation ( other than ridicule from David's wife ) to those who dance
c) Nowhere in the Bible, to my knowledge, is there any condemnation for a woman who speaks back to her husband ( in private, of course - to do so in public is frowned upon - as it would be for the husband as well )

So, no, I don't believe that "That's in the Bible, too."
But feel free to educate me.

a)

DT 25:11 A wife who grabs her husband's opponent by his "private parts" must have her hand cut off and is to be shown no pity.

b)
ISA 18:6 Mixed couples when dancing dressed or near nude, are practicing sexual foreplay.
Body to body dancing is a common teaching of the Devil, and an old custom of nations that hate God's word.

PSA 150:4 Praising God in a fully clothed personal dance when giving thanks for spiritual freedom is acceptable, if the sexes are separated in different rooms.

Mixed dancing has never been allowed when worshipping before the Lord.

EXO 32:19 & 35 In the wilderness of sin, Satan used about 3000 Egyptians, and Hebrews to do a sexual, naked, screaming, laughing dance in worship to a molten calf of gold.

God killed most of them.

PSA 30:31 Pentecostal personal dancing is acceptable when done respectfully in the joy of the Lord, in a non-mixed gathering of the sexes.

LK 15:25 Dancing is acceptable when Pentecostals return to God from a backslidden lifestyle.

On the worldly church platforms of neo-Pentecostal churches Satan has people atwitter with his soft porn burlesque dancing.

Sweet young hussies in gossamer clothing, tiht pants, and of questionable morality flit back and forth showing everything but God.

This dance is done to keep the horny old male church spenders in the front row from leaving.

c)
Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may train the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. (Titus 2:3-5, NAS/NIV)
(I couldn't locate the actual passage I was thinking of, but I think this will suffice for argument's sake.)

On the contrary, I think I remember it just fine... Any other rebuttals?

Message edited by author 2005-11-09 23:50:00.

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/10/2005 12:11:27 AM · #279

â�¦ gosh darn stupid intermittent internet connection â�¦&%## â�¦#$@@!! ... making me post this hours later

Originally posted by theSaj:

Furthermore, I do not believe that any "real" scientist can in fact be an atheist.

You might believe that, but it the idea is so wrong-headed that it would be absolutely asinine to admit it in writing so that other people could read it and make fun of you for it. An atheist can formulate and conduct scientific experiments to test scientific hypothesis just as can a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc., etc., etc. Religious beliefs do not affect the validity of a theory or a controlled experiment.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Under the scientific method, the simple lack of evidence is not justification in science to make such a statement "there is no God". One could say, "I have observed no evidence of a God and theorized that there is none, but do not have conclusive proof one way or the other" equating to agnostic.

In which modern science textbooks do you find the statement â��there is no Godâ��? Iâ��d wager money that none do. Want to take the bet?

Doesnâ��t the fact that gods are supposedly supernatural beings place them outside the realm of scientific discovery? Science canâ��t say anything about the existence of gods unless someone can come up with a repeatable, empirical test for them.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I think it's interesting how often people are deriding I.D. (which has many varying opinions, some are 6-day creationists and other are "evolution by design" (those who believe there was a great programmer who had written the genetic coding).

People deride ID because it is a thinly disguised creationism masquerading as science and supported by a political/cultural movement. There isnâ��t even a theory which could be tested nor are there any published peer-reviewed articles using ID concepts in any mainstream journals. It is interesting to note that the textbook, Of Pandas and People, which was one of the centers of ID controversy in the as yet undecided Kitzmiller v. DASD in Dover, Pennsylvania was shown by the prosecution to be a rewritten creationist book which, among other things, had been edited to take out the word â��creationismâ�� and replace it with the words â��intelligent design.â��

Originally posted by theSaj:

And so many on these forums quote how stupid and foolish religious people are and how they always dismiss science. I find it comically sad that few even know what they're talking about. I.D. is a theory. (And yes, there is evidence to suggest such possibilities. A complexity and ordered natured of genetic code. Commonality of code segments in various samples similar in style could denote a common coder.) It's a theory, based on observations of complexity. Is it the right theory. We do not know yet....needs more observations.

ID is not a theory. It explains nothing, isnâ��t testable, and makes no predictions. Observing things are complex does nothing to further our understanding of why they are complex. Postulating an even more complex designer, who's also untestable, does not further scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by theSaj:

As for science fact, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is just that a theory. Now, it's got an immense amount of weight. But there are still some rough spots that keep it from being denoted "Law". For some reason, you guys keep denoting science = what we know to be true. And therefore ID should not be allowed in a science classroom. When in fact, much of science includes that which we know to be true, that we supposed to be true, and that which we believe might be true and are yet researching.

OK. You seriously need to go back to the books and learn about science. â��Theoriesâ�� do not become â��lawsâ��. â��Theoriesâ�� are hypothesis explaining a set of facts which have undergone testing, especially by predicting future phenomenon or discoveries. â��Lawsâ�� are descriptions of universal behavior such as Newtonâ��s Laws of Gravity which describe motion. The Newton's Theory of Gravity did not graduate to become the Laws of Gravity.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I, myself happen to be quite fond of science. But I also know that science is quite prone to mistakes and requires continual ongoing corrections.

Me too. Iâ��m currently reading Brian Greenâ��s The Fabric of the Cosmos after reading his great book The Elegant Universe. Might I suggest Richard Dawkinâ��s The Blind Watchmaker or The Selfish Gene? Or, perhaps, if you're looking for something a little different, youâ��d like to find out a little about skepticism, might I suggest Carl Saganâ��s The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark?

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/10/2005 12:24:19 AM · #280

Originally posted by RonB:

Yes. But.

Before I answer, one thing must be made clear - the Bible consists of two TESTAMENTS - the OLD and the NEW.

Just as in the modern era where, for legal purposes, a NEW "Last Will and Testament" makes obsolete the directives of an earlier "Last Will and Testament", so, with the Bible, the NEW Testament makes obsolete the directives of the OLD Testament.
Thus, the endless quoting of the anti-Bible crowd about the "laws and commandments" from the OLD Testament is really not a valid debating point - unless the directive is also included as part of the New Testament.
Now, that doesn't make the OLD Testament less valuable - it IS a monumental reference book on the culture, religion, history, art, literature, etc. not only of the era, but also a detailed narrative about the character and nature of God.

So, Yes, I DO believe in the Bible, but I believe in the WHOLE Bible. For morals and values, I rely on the NEW Testament. For the nature of God, and for history, culture, etc. I value Both. For what Olyuzi asked, I quoted the NEW ( for the values ) and referenced the OLD ( to show that God's nature ( values ) hadn't changed ).

Thanks for asking.

Just out of curiosity, are the Ten Commandments (take your pick of the three versions in the Old Testament - two similar, one different) of the Old Covenant valid or has their validity "passed away" with the coming of the New Covenant?

RonB

11/10/2005 12:45:15 AM · #281

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by SJCarter:
And let's continue to cut off the hands of those who steal, condemn those who dance, and any woman who speaks back to her husband. After all, that's in the Bible too, right?!?

EDIT: And, yes, I've read it from cover to cover multiple times...

You may have READ it, but I don't believe you remember it.
a) Nowhere in the Bible, to my knowledge, is there any reference to cutting off the hands of one who steals
b) Nowhere in the Bible, to my knowledge, is there any condemnation ( other than ridicule from David's wife ) to those who dance
c) Nowhere in the Bible, to my knowledge, is there any condemnation for a woman who speaks back to her husband ( in private, of course - to do so in public is frowned upon - as it would be for the husband as well )

So, no, I don't believe that "That's in the Bible, too."
But feel free to educate me.

a)

DT 25:11 A wife who grabs her husband's opponent by his "private parts" must have her hand cut off and is to be shown no pity.

So, grabbing her husband's opponent by his "private parts" is, to your educated mind, equivalent to "STEALING"?

Originally posted by SJCarter:

b)
ISA 18:6 Mixed couples when dancing dressed or near nude, are practicing sexual foreplay.
Body to body dancing is a common teaching of the Devil, and an old custom of nations that hate God's word.

What Bible are you quoting? The King James Version lists Isaiah 18:6 as this:
"They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains, and to the beasts of the earth: and the fowls shall summer upon them, and all the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them."
I haven't a clue where you found that verse, but it surely isn't in Isaiah

Originally posted by SJCarter:

PSA 150:4 Praising God in a fully clothed personal dance when giving thanks for spiritual freedom is acceptable, if the sexes are separated in different rooms.

Mixed dancing has never been allowed when worshipping before the Lord.

Oh, I get it now - you are quoting from theFalling Backward, Laughing, Dancing, Tembling, and Shaking website ( ref: here - not exactly a Bible that the masses would be familiar with.
But refute, I must.
In the King James, Psalm 150, verse 4 does anything BUT condemn dancing. It says:
"Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs."

Originally posted by SJCarter:

EXO 32:19 & 35 In the wilderness of sin, Satan used about 3000 Egyptians, and Hebrews to do a sexual, naked, screaming, laughing dance in worship to a molten calf of gold.

God killed most of them.

Actually these verses in the King James go like this:

"19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount."
"35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made."

Note that the Lord plagued the people because they made the calf, not because they danced.

Originally posted by SJCarter:

PSA 30:31 Pentecostal personal dancing is acceptable when done respectfully in the joy of the Lord, in a non-mixed gathering of the sexes.

Unfortunately, I cannot refute this passage, since there is no verse 31 in chapter 30 of the book of Psalms ( except perhaps in the Bible that YOU read cover to cover multiple times )

Originally posted by SJCarter:

LK 15:25 Dancing is acceptable when Pentecostals return to God from a backslidden lifestyle.

On the worldly church platforms of neo-Pentecostal churches Satan has people atwitter with his soft porn burlesque dancing.

Sweet young hussies in gossamer clothing, tiht pants, and of questionable morality flit back and forth showing everything but God.

This dance is done to keep the horny old male church spenders in the front row from leaving.

From the King James:
"25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing.
26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound."

Doesn't sound like condemnation to me. Nor does it sound like the quote lifted from your Bible.

Originally posted by SJCarter:

c)
Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may train the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. (Titus 2:3-5, NAS/NIV)
(I couldn't locate the actual passage I was thinking of, but I think this will suffice for argument's sake.)

Hardly. Nothing in there at all about talking back to their husbands. But at least you quoted from a version of the Bible that I'm familiar with.

Originally posted by SJCarter:

On the contrary, I think I remember it just fine... Any other rebuttals?

No. I think I've rebutted enough for one night. But I would suggest that you ask your pharmacist about Ginkgo-Biloba. It's said that it improves ones memory.

RonB

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/10/2005 01:02:16 AM · #282

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by RonB:
Yes. But.

Before I answer, one thing must be made clear - the Bible consists of two TESTAMENTS - the OLD and the NEW.

Just as in the modern era where, for legal purposes, a NEW "Last Will and Testament" makes obsolete the directives of an earlier "Last Will and Testament", so, with the Bible, the NEW Testament makes obsolete the directives of the OLD Testament.
Thus, the endless quoting of the anti-Bible crowd about the "laws and commandments" from the OLD Testament is really not a valid debating point - unless the directive is also included as part of the New Testament.
Now, that doesn't make the OLD Testament less valuable - it IS a monumental reference book on the culture, religion, history, art, literature, etc. not only of the era, but also a detailed narrative about the character and nature of God.

So, Yes, I DO believe in the Bible, but I believe in the WHOLE Bible. For morals and values, I rely on the NEW Testament. For the nature of God, and for history, culture, etc. I value Both. For what Olyuzi asked, I quoted the NEW ( for the values ) and referenced the OLD ( to show that God's nature ( values ) hadn't changed ).

Thanks for asking.

Just out of curiosity, are the Ten Commandments (take your pick of the three versions in the Old Testament - two similar, one different) of the Old Covenant valid or has their validity "passed away" with the coming of the New Covenant?

The New Testament takes precedence, BUT, they are still valid. In the New Testament, Christ includes the commandments thusly

(Matthew 5:17-19 ):
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

He goes on to say:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black."

And ( in Matthew 19:17-19 )

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, 'Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?' And he said unto him, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments". He saith unto him, 'Which?' Jesus said, "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".

Message edited by author 2005-11-10 01:03:55.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

11/10/2005 01:17:09 AM · #283

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
First Ron, is this the only scripture that refers to homosexuality?
Secondly, from the passage you quoted above, it appears that god used "unnatural relations" as punishment. Is the Bible saying that all people who have homosexual relations are being punished for some wrong done to god? Are there not good homosexual Christians, or is that an oxymoron?

Those are excellent questions. I'll try my best to respond.

Another scripture ( new testament ) comes to mind.
Jude 1:7 refers back to Sodom and Gomorrah thusly:
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
The reference here to "strange flesh" is in all likelihood referring to homosexual activities.

Open to interpretation, like you said below, but it doesn't sound like there is a lot of reference specifically to homosexual behavior or its prohibition in the Bible.

Originally posted by RonB:

God doesn't "use" unnatural relations as punishment. Just as an earthly father, when his child steadfastly refuses to heed his warnings, says "Fine, do what you want - and suffer the consequences", so scripture says that, when they refused to listen, God "gave them over" to their OWN lusts, - and the punishment was a consequence of their OWN doing.

So they weren't being punished for homosexual behavior, but rather for: "...they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him..."
So far no specific reference that homosexuality is prohibited from the Bible.

Originally posted by RonB:

Are homosexuals being punished for some wrongdoing? No more so than those who dishonor their parents, gossip, or any of the other sins listed. Do they perhaps suffer graver consequences? Perhaps, but if they do it is because their lifestyle puts them at higher risk.

Higher risk for what?[/quote]

Originally posted by RonB:

The very term "good Christian" is an oxymoron. Even Christ asked one of his followers "Why callest thou me "good". There is NONE good, save God." Though in the modern vernacular, a homosexual Christian is no better nor any worse than a heterosexual Christian. However, scripture says that the believers should shun ANY Christian who wilfully continues sinning openly after having been confronted with his/her sin. NOTE: believers are NOT told to shun NON-believers who live openly in sin - only to shun believers who remain unrepentant.
Note: the preceeding, if not directly quoted from scripture, are my opinions, and/or my interpretations of scripture.

But it doesn't seem to me so far that homosexuality has been deemed a sin in the Bible. Is it an interpretation by the leaders of Christianity that it is so? If a Christian homosexual is no better or worse than a Christian heterosexual, then why is it that homosexual behavior is so shunned and made such a big issue over by the Christian right?

res0m50r

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/10/2005 01:49:38 AM · #284

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I believe RonB already quoted Romans 1:18-32, but for the King James Version go here //www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32&version=9

Here is another 1 Corinthians 6:9-11... to read the King James Version go here //www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11;&version=9;

"9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

The last I have found tonight is here in 1 Timothy 1:9-11... //www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11;&version=9;

"9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

EDITED: to fix hyperlinks

Message edited by author 2005-11-10 01:50:30.

11/10/2005 03:12:10 AM · #285

Originally posted by queanbeez:

Hell, I cant even get my boyfriend to commit to marriage after 5 yrs. So, Congrats to those who can find someone who will.

Do you really need a big wedding and a expensive ring to say you two are married??? Personally I would never get married in a church. I would rather get married in an open field in the middle of nowhere under gods natural roof with a rope/tie/scarf to bond 2 hands together. The history of the wedding ring is and has been blown way out from where it originated from and does not mean what it originally meant.

11/10/2005 03:18:38 AM · #286

Originally posted by SJCarter:

There is supposed to be a distinct separation of religion and government in the USA

Then why do you get christmas holidays??? Think about it.

11/10/2005 03:34:00 AM · #287

To conclude my broadcast day...

WHAT IS ALL THIS HOSTILITY DOING TO THE VOTING???

RichSeal

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/10/2005 04:11:35 AM · #288

Originally posted by notonline:

To conclude my broadcast day...

WHAT IS ALL THIS HOSTILITY DOING TO THE VOTING???

Not much - my score sucks!

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

11/10/2005 04:26:11 AM · #289

Originally posted by RichSeal:

Originally posted by notonline:
To conclude my broadcast day...

WHAT IS ALL THIS HOSTILITY DOING TO THE VOTING???

Not much - my score sucks!

sucks what??? Is that a politically correct question for this thread??? lol j/k

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/10/2005 07:51:36 AM · #290

I missed out on contributing earlier, but it seems to me that most people are agreed, from both sides of the fence that there is no problem with gay people having the same civil rights as heterosexual people if they commit to a legal union. Whether the ceremony is or could be effective as a religious ceremony is amatter for the leaders of the relevant religion and the people involved in the ceremony.

The civil rights relate to issues such as taxation rights/benefits, consent in the event of incapacity, inheritance rights and pension rights. They are very much human and societal matters, rather than religious matters. They can have a tremendous impact on lifestyle and individual wealth.

The problem with the Texan amendment is that it is intended to prevent all forms of union that are similar to marriage where the union is not male/female.

The reason for the amendments could be, AFAIK:

1) An attempt at social engineering with the intention of increasing the number of heterosexual relationships, or reducing the number of gay relationships, for, say, population control reasons, or maintaining traditional Western social units (the 2 parent family);

2) An attempt at limiting the financial impact of increased numbers of married people (the pensions and tax benefits on inheritance would have a significant impact on the pensions industry and on tax collection)

3) Based on the principles of the predominant local religion;

4) Based on a more basic social discrimination against gay people.

Factors 1 and 2 are areas where government has (arguably) some justification in meddling. Personally, I think not, but I can understand the reasoning (even if I disagree with it). Factors 3 and 4 are arbitrary and objectionable.

I think that these are all factors that may have lead to the decision to propose the amendment. My perception is that Texas is a deeply conservative part of the US with a very high number of people with very strong religious convictions, and that the voting result is probably very heavily influenced by factors 3 and 4. I think, therefore, that the amendment is objectionable.

From the UK perspective, marriage is a civil affair, but where the couple can choose a religious ceremony or a non religious ceremony. We are implementing the concept of civil unions for same sex couples, but these are limited to same sex couples and are a form of "marriage lite", criticised for not including certain important pensions rights (factor 2) and not being available for heterosexual couples (prob factor 1 or just bad planning). Society has not collapsed as a consequence.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

11/10/2005 07:57:12 AM · #291

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by SJCarter:
On the contrary, I think I remember it just fine... Any other rebuttals?

No. I think I've rebutted enough for one night. But I would suggest that you ask your pharmacist about Ginkgo-Biloba. It's said that it improves ones memory.

Ron - Very nice line for line breakdown (on the 11/10/2005 12:45:15 AM post) in clarifying the correct passages. Thanks.

hokie

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

11/10/2005 08:01:44 AM · #292

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Great Post!

jenesis

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/10/2005 08:02:21 AM · #293

legalbeagle, thanks for putting this back on track with the original subject of this post. It seemed to get lost in all the random bible quoting that was going on. Very nice way to sum it all up.

mikasi

Canon EOS-20D

11/10/2005 08:23:28 AM · #294

I think that George Carlin was right...

"We should kick all those black people off welfare and put them to work picking up garbage off the streets. Then we can use it to fill in the Bearing Strait. That way we could charge them Indians a buck a head to walk back to where they came from."

Wait, what does that have to do with preserving marriage? Likely just as much as making up amendments to stop homosexuals from getting married.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

11/10/2005 09:15:12 AM · #295

WAIT!

STOP!

I'VE FIGURED IT ALL OUT!

i now know beyond a shadow of a doubt why the government is trying to stop gay weddings: they'd be WAY better than straight weddings!

think about it: we'd hog the best florists, the finest bakers, the most extravagent venues. our tuxes would be flawless, the guests would be dressed to the nines, and there wouldn't be a bottle of Veuve left for 3 counties around. drag queens would get all of the best vera wang originals (and would scratch out the eyes of anyone who tried to buy anything similar).

i think i'm really on to something here! not only would all of the best resources be used, but gay weddings would be an enormous drag (no pun intended) on the economy!

straight women everywhere would try their best to keep up. they'd bankrupt themselves in order to have a fabulous gay wedding! $35 napkin rings for the rehearsal dinner? charge 'em! a bmw convertible to whisk you away to your 3-week mediterranean honeymoon cruise? let's roll!

everyone would be on the prowl for fancy venues, leaving dark wood-paneled lodges at state parks sitting empty and alone. dj's would be forced onto the street, as a shiny new iPod nano would be plenty to spin disco hits all night long. what about the person who owns the license to "the chicken dance?" no more royalties for them!

suddenly, panama city beach just doesn't sound like such an exciting honeymoon destination -- leaving a wide swath of destitute t-shirt vendors with no one to market their wares. and just how much money would you have to invest to hire Martika to sing at your wedding, now that your second cousin twice removed just won't do?

i get it! the government is really just trying to keep straight people from doing a lot of damage to themselves. it all makes perfect sense now!

i've posted this on another thread before, but it's very valid now:

gay people wouldn't undo straight marriage. we'd outdo it.

*snap*

Message edited by author 2005-11-10 09:20:46.

jenesis