RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

SternSkipper -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/6/2012 8:29:56 PM)

quote:


So tolerant. Gives me warm fuzzies all over Makes me thirsty for a glass of water

Woah ... don't drink from that one in front of you. I pissed in it.



dcnovice -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/6/2012 8:34:30 PM)

quote:

Seems to me that homosexuality is impliedly disfavored within the context of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin.

Did Darwin actually say anything about homosexuality, not simply in humans but in many other species?

quote:

A text most assuredly claimed by Atheist, often cited, and a foundational source within Atheism's worldview.

Given that atheism long predates Darwin, I'm not sure how "foundational" his work is to it.

quote:

Now Darwin does not justify bashing of any sort. But neither does the Bible.


Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."



FatDomDaddy -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/6/2012 8:43:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

I am tired of the bigotry label being hoisted upon people simply because they disagree upon the political definition of the word marriage as it pertains to homosexual couples. People of deep abiding Faith, who hold no rancor or malice toward homosexuals are being labeled haters and bigots simply for giving money to political causes which oppose the agenda of "Gay" marriage. And its not just the billions of people of faith that oppose allowing the marriage of homosexual couples, it seems millions of secular, agnostic and atheistic communists oppose it as well.


Okay, so let's kick the word marriage out of it for a minute. Do you think it's okay for people to deny a same sex couple the same rights to say, spousal dependency under medical insurance? Do you think that a gay partner should be prevented from making medical decisions for their partner? Do you think that a person who has all the other qualities of a spouse other than sexual differentiation should be denied inheritance of the worldly goods chattel and property of the decedent?
Cause that's what I'M tired of... the phony title of totalitarian or socialist FOISTED upon me because I happen to look further than a fucking bouquet being tossed.
BTW - if it's 'billions" .. really? Like how many 'billions' 1? 3? 6? Where'd you get those figures from. Or is this just a "Well there's a billion Catholics, a billion Muslims, ....." thing. I'm not accusing you of having had some fun with the actuaries here, I've just never seen any evidence it's being tracked like that.




I have no problem with "civil unions" for homosexual couples or codifying homosexuals giving lawful powers to their partners. If you wanted to have the debate on allowing legal civil unions for homosexual partners, I think you would find the overwhelming percentage of Americans agreeing with you and if the homosexual community would give on trying to change the definition of the word marriage, within about 50 years, as more and more "straight" couples opt for the civil union option, nobody would care what its called.

As for "billions".... there are over seven billion people in the world, in any measure, there are billions who oppose the political and legal definition of marriage to include homosexuals.



FatDomDaddy -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/6/2012 8:45:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Seems to me that homosexuality is impliedly disfavored within the context of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin.

Did Darwin actually say anything about homosexuality, not simply in humans but in many other species?

quote:

A text most assuredly claimed by Atheist, often cited, and a foundational source within Atheism's worldview.

Given that atheism long predates Darwin, I'm not sure how "foundational" his work is to it.

quote:

Now Darwin does not justify bashing of any sort. But neither does the Bible.


Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."



I didn't write it so ask him....

As for the link, moon wanted examples... they were fairly easy to find... there are lots more.



Owner59 -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/6/2012 8:59:32 PM)

So what say you FFD......


Do folks have a right to discriminate against gays and hide behind their religion to get away with it?



If Rev. Phelps uses the bible to mask his anti-gay bigotry .......what difference is there with Chick-fila`s excuse for their anti gay bigotry?

Sure Phelps is louder and much more vile........but they`re both doing it for the same misguided reasons, reading from the same page.





SternSkipper -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/6/2012 9:29:29 PM)

quote:


I have no problem with "civil unions" for homosexual couples or codifying homosexuals giving lawful powers to their partners. If you wanted to have the debate on allowing legal civil unions for homosexual partners, I think you would find the overwhelming percentage of Americans agreeing with you and if the homosexual community would give on trying to change the definition of the word marriage, within about 50 years, as more and more "straight" couples opt for the civil union option, nobody would care what its called.


I doubt it since the word "marriage" is purely semantic in terms of the law. Except of course for that fucking cuckoo "Defense Of Marriage Act". Can you refresh my memory where there's a state where civil unions were legislated and your homies didn't come out raising objections? That's an honest question. I am not sure that's true.
Just sayin'
quote:


As for "billions".... there are over seven billion people in the world, in any measure, there are billions who oppose the political and legal definition of marriage to include homosexuals.


I know how many people in the world there are ... I even check it along with other statistics a few times a month. How many as a whole is immaterial.

So you made an assumption. Then I'll hop out on a limb and say there's billions who support gay marriage, civil unions, whatever you want to call that hair across your ass. There, it's all good.
[image]http://yoursmiles.org/bsmile/fun/b0230.gif[/image]



SternSkipper -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/6/2012 9:40:50 PM)

But wait ... these people must be from different billions than FatDaddy hangs with:

http://carnalnation.com/content/45403/898/rally-today-against-hawaii-civil-unions

But don't worry folks... these can't be nearly as many people.. they're just some anomaly no doubt. Cause as we've been told, it's the "marriages" that are objected to.



SternSkipper -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/6/2012 9:48:06 PM)

And hey, overseas... don't the Australians have "civil unions"? Of course, since they're not calling it marriage, there's nobody giving them a hard time over the rights that should naturally be afforded a civil union, right?



farglebargle -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 3:49:39 AM)

"MARRIAGE" is, and always has been defined in NYS as a CIVIL CONTRACT.

The UCC requires Contracts to be constructed without regard to gender.

Therefore, all those claiming some other 'traditional' definition of marriage are wrong, according to the historical and current laws of New York State.

QED.



thompsonx -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 6:04:34 AM)

quote:

I have no problem with "civil unions" for homosexual couples or codifying homosexuals giving lawful powers to their partners. If you wanted to have the debate on allowing legal civil unions for homosexual partners, I think you would find the overwhelming percentage of Americans agreeing with you and if the homosexual community would give on trying to change the definition of the word marriage, within about 50 years, as more and more "straight" couples opt for the civil union option, nobody would care what its called.


Do you have any sort of validation for this moronic tripe???
or:
is this just your opinion?




thompsonx -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 6:05:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

"MARRIAGE" is, and always has been defined in NYS as a CIVIL CONTRACT.

The UCC requires Contracts to be constructed without regard to gender.

Therefore, all those claiming some other 'traditional' definition of marriage are wrong, according to the historical and current laws of New York State.

QED.

Oh shit, facts.
How dare you clutter up this forum with facts.



dcnovice -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 6:20:45 AM)

quote:

I didn't write it so ask him....

As for the link, moon wanted examples... they were fairly easy to find... there are lots more.

Hmm. It's a little odd that you'd answer my post to Yachtie but not the questions posed to you directly.

There are two things I'm still curious about:

(a) Opponents of same-sex marriage have devoted considerable time and money to their battle against it. What motivates them in this fight? You seem to be telling us that it's not anti-gay sentiment, but you haven't identified any other impetus.

(b) One of the links you posted argues that marriage should be limited to straight couples because its main purpose is to propagate the species. Do you agree with that argument? If so, should marriage be denied to hetero couples who know that they cannot or will not have children?



thompsonx -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 6:40:47 AM)

quote:

I didn't write it so ask him....

You posted the link. It is endemic upon you to support it as you are using it to support your arguement.
Why do you hate gay people?
Did someone bend you over and drive you home and then not kiss you goodnight?



Yachtie -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 6:42:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Seems to me that homosexuality is impliedly disfavored within the context of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin.

Did Darwin actually say anything about homosexuality, not simply in humans but in many other species?



Irrelevant whether he did or did not. The simple fact is that homosexuality has no place within the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, having removed itself from any consideration.

Given that atheism long predates Darwin, I'm not sure how "foundational" his work is to it.

Atheists sure do love to tout their Darwin.


Now Darwin does not justify bashing of any sort. But neither does the Bible.
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."


Guess the lawful punishment for murder, rape, stealing is bashing too then?

I'd think bashing is more akin to pointing the finger where there are three pointing back. Like before you point at another, remove the log from thy own eye first.






Moonhead -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 6:57:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Seems to me that homosexuality is impliedly disfavored within the context of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin.

Did Darwin actually say anything about homosexuality, not simply in humans but in many other species?

quote:

A text most assuredly claimed by Atheist, often cited, and a foundational source within Atheism's worldview.

Given that atheism long predates Darwin, I'm not sure how "foundational" his work is to it.

quote:

Now Darwin does not justify bashing of any sort. But neither does the Bible.


Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."



I didn't write it so ask him....

As for the link, moon wanted examples... they were fairly easy to find... there are lots more.

Then maybe you should produce something, rather than the load of blather above.
If it's so easy to find something germane, why is that the best you can manage?



Yachtie -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 7:11:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

"MARRIAGE" is, and always has been defined in NYS as a CIVIL CONTRACT.

The UCC requires Contracts to be constructed without regard to gender.

Therefore, all those claiming some other 'traditional' definition of marriage are wrong, according to the historical and current laws of New York State.

QED.



So Common Law marriage never existed in NYS? That's what you are seemingly implying, that marriage in NYS has always been by statute since State inception.

And besides, the UCC has its origin in 1942 and first published in 1952. NYS existed well before the UCC.

Your method of trying to make some point, whatever that may be, is total F.A.I.L.




dcnovice -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 7:17:00 AM)

quote:

Irrelevant whether he did or did not. The simple fact is that homosexuality has no place within the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, having removed itself from any consideration.

Is your whole analysis on how homosexuality fits into evolution (or doesn't) based on the subtitle of a single book, published in 1859? There's been a fair amount of scientific research since then.


quote:

Atheists sure do love to tout their Darwin.

Perhaps. I'm not sure, though, if they're touting just Darwin specifically or the much larger body of work on evolutionary biology.


quote:

Now Darwin does not justify bashing of any sort. But neither does the Bible.
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

Guess the lawful punishment for murder, rape, stealing is bashing too then?

That would depend, I think, on whether one views homosexuality as akin to murder, rape, and stealing. I don't, but ymmv. I do think (and I say this sadly, as a churchgoer) that many folks pluck verses from Scripture as "evidence" that God shares their prejudice against gay folk.


quote:

I'd think bashing is more akin to pointing the finger where there are three pointing back. Like before you point at another, remove the log from thy own eye first.

I agree about removing the log from one's own eye. It's important, though, to remember that in this broken world, gay-bashing can be quite literal. I learned this firsthand in London; Matthew Shepard learned it even more tragically in Wyoming.



kalikshama -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 7:47:41 AM)

quote:

That doesn't fit with the anti religion crew here..


For the record, I went to church four of the last five Sundays. I also volunteer occasionally. I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-discrimination and hypocrisy.



Moonhead -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 8:15:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Irrelevant whether he did or did not. The simple fact is that homosexuality has no place within the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, having removed itself from any consideration.

Really?
That'll be news to those biologists who think that it might be there as a checking measure to prevent population explosions and crashes in mammals, then.



farglebargle -> RE: Why You Should Head To Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday (Today) And Drop Proverbs 25:21 On The Counter (8/7/2012 8:29:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

"MARRIAGE" is, and always has been defined in NYS as a CIVIL CONTRACT.

The UCC requires Contracts to be constructed without regard to gender.

Therefore, all those claiming some other 'traditional' definition of marriage are wrong, according to the historical and current laws of New York State.

QED.



So Common Law marriage never existed in NYS? That's what you are seemingly implying, that marriage in NYS has always been by statute since State inception.

And besides, the UCC has its origin in 1942 and first published in 1952. NYS existed well before the UCC.

Your method of trying to make some point, whatever that may be, is total F.A.I.L.




Yet the REPUBLICAN LEAD legislature in New York State agreed and resolved the long standing ambiguity in the dom. rel. law.

Fascinating.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 [12] 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0390625