Skyhook79;1017982 wrote:The Bible doesn't prohibit anything.

What do you call it when it says"You shall not..."
"You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard." - Leviticus 19:27

Fred Flintstone;1018103 wrote:What do you call it when it says"You shall not..."
"You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard." - Leviticus 19:27

I call it the same thing when each State posts the legal driving speed limit signs on the highways. You have the choice to follow them or not and possible consequences of your decision.

"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive."
1 Corinthians 10:23

Fred Flintstone;1018103 wrote:What do you call it when it says"You shall not..."
"You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard." - Leviticus 19:27

I love when someone doesn't understand the difference between the historical record parts of the Bible and the teachings of the Bible. You do realize that 95% of Leviticus is historical records of the JEWISH laws, not Biblical teachings of how Christians are to live.

jmog;1018641 wrote:I love when someone doesn't understand the difference between the historical record parts of the Bible and the teachings of the Bible. You do realize that 95% of Leviticus is historical records of the JEWISH laws, not Biblical teachings of how Christians are to live.

I don't subscribe to the teachings of the bible, if you look at my first post I listed a bunch of things that the bible "prohibits" and then I said SMH. The reason I put the SMH is because people will take any random piece of the text from the bible and twist to fit their individual beliefs.

Fred Flintstone;1018774 wrote:I don't subscribe to the teachings of the bible, if you look at my first post I listed a bunch of things that the bible "prohibits" and then I said SMH. The reason I put the SMH is because people will take any random piece of the text from the bible and twist to fit their individual beliefs.

As you did with your post?

Skyhook79;1017903 wrote:I would think a Harvard man would be able to communicate better.

Harvard?

I Wear Pants;1021369 wrote:Harvard?

It's a prestigous university in Mass. Facebook was founded there.

Hope this helps.

dwccrew;1022976 wrote:It's a prestigous university in Mass. Facebook was founded there.

Hope this helps.

That helps defining Harvard but not how I would be related to anything like a "prestigious university". Not my style, I go slumming for my academic institution needs.

Anyway, getting back to the original point of this thread, CBS News ran a report a few days ago stating that the repeal of DADT has gone very well. What surprised me is that there are gay clubs being formed on many military bases. I expected something like this in a few years but not so soon.

Gays and lesbians are making great progress. As soon as we have gay marriage legal in the remaining 40-some states, we will have complete human rights.

FairwoodKing;1027148 wrote:...

Gays and lesbians are making great progress. As soon as we have gay marriage legal in the remaining 40-some states, we will have complete human rights.

No you won't. If you want "complete human rights" fight to end State sanctioned marriage. Being forced to have State permission to marry is ridiculous. Gaining it doesn't mean you have acquired a human right. That's laughable.

FairwoodKing;1027148 wrote:Anyway, getting back to the original point of this thread, CBS News ran a report a few days ago stating that the repeal of DADT has gone very well. What surprised me is that there are gay clubs being formed on many military bases. I expected something like this in a few years but not so soon.

Gays and lesbians are making great progress. As soon as we have gay marriage legal in the remaining 40-some states, we will have complete human rights.

listen, we get it that you want all this equality..and to be honest, I agree with you. Gays/Lesbians are no different than straight/blind/retarded/etc people. but your last line is what really pisses me off. "gays and lesbians are making great progress...we will have complete human rights"..you guys make it seem liike you are animals getting adjusted to the human world. Don't lump yourself into a category that makes it seem like you are "different' and you won't be treated as such. well at least not by normal people, can't speak for the retarded religoius zealots who think the bible is the key to everything.

DeyDurkie5;1027197 wrote: well at least not by normal people, can't speak for the retarded religoius zealots who think the bible is the key to everything.

Ah, speaking of retarded, you should read your posts some times...

DeyDurkie5;1027197 wrote:well at least not by normal people, can't speak for the retarded religoius zealots who think the bible is the key to everything.

We religious zealots had a good time yesterday celebrating the birth of Christ. What did you do?

jmog;1027223 wrote:Ah, speaking of retarded, you should read your posts some times...

Footwedge;1027232 wrote:We religious zealots had a good time yesterday celebrating the birth of Christ. What did you do?

I drank beer, grilled out, and chilled with my family. I didn't live my life according to what the bible says and it's turned out great so far. Also, I'm not narrow minded enough to think I should, but that's your choice. if you get angry over one sentence then you should look at wat jesus taught you guys

footwedge, I had a great time yesterday as well..what's your point? and how was your celebration geared towards that specifically? I bet you opened presents, drank and ate, and didn't mention more than once or twice that you were celebrating "jesus' birth"..it's a cop out to buy gifts and relax, nothing more nothing less.

DeyDurkie5;1027246 wrote:I drank beer, grilled out, and chilled with my family. I didn't live my life according to what the bible says and it's turned out great so far. Also, I'm not narrow minded enough to think I should, but that's your choice. if you get angry over one sentence then you should look at wat jesus taught you guys

footwedge, I had a great time yesterday as well..what's your point? and how was your celebration geared towards that specifically? I bet you opened presents, drank and ate, and didn't mention more than once or twice that you were celebrating "jesus' birth"..it's a cop out to buy gifts and relax, nothing more nothing less.

. Easy there Durk. You'd be incorrect though on the "once or twice" thingy. Should we get rid of Christmas and Easter as a national day of reflection?

My point.... I think...was made. This is America. If you want to be atheist...be an atheist. Have no problem with that.

Con_Alma;1027173 wrote:No you won't. If you want "complete human rights" fight to end State sanctioned marriage. Being forced to have State permission to marry is ridiculous. Gaining it doesn't mean you have acquired a human right. That's laughable.

It's not laughable. It's the reality that we live with. State sanctioned marriage is not going away, so we have to live within the system. We will continue to strive for equality until every state recognizes our marriage and that it is also sanctioned by the federal government.

It's laughable that you thingk gaining the ability to marriage is aquiring a human right. Getting married isn't a right. The proof of that is the afct that people need permission to do it.

If you need permission, it isn't right. That's what was laughable.

Con_Alma;1027448 wrote:It's laughable that you thingk gaining the ability to marriage is aquiring a human right. Getting married isn't a right. The proof of that is the afct that people need permission to do it.

If you need permission, it isn't right. That's what was laughable.

agreed...if you love the person be with them, why do you need a state to tell you that? It's another one of those "everyone is out to get the gays!!" type of deal.

It's the benefits that come with State sanctioning that they want...along with public recognition and approvale...I think. I say get rid of State sanctioned marriage. The benefits can be addressed with a simple affidavit or notarized paper.

I agree with you Durkie.

DeyDurkie5;1027246 wrote:I drank beer, grilled out, and chilled with my family. I didn't live my life according to what the bible says and it's turned out great so far. if you get angry over one sentence then you should look at wat jesus taught you guys

Thats your choice. I have no problem with that. Why do you get bent out of shape when people talk about their Faith or share their belief and quote scripture. If you don't believe Jesus or God exist why does it bother you so much?

Skyhook79;1027561 wrote:Thats your choice. I have no problem with that. Why do you get bent out of shape when people talk about their Faith or share their belief and quote scripture. If you don't believe Jesus or God exist why does it bother you so much?

because in my eye it's not a valid argument because I think it's all bullshit. So it sounds retarded as shit to me when someone says "oh look at this bible verse, it's right because it's in a book written years ago." That to me is just a cop out, similar to "well i believe in it because of my faith/or because the bible says so"

DeyDurkie5;1027470 wrote:agreed...if you love the person be with them, why do you need a state to tell you that? It's another one of those "everyone is out to get the gays!!" type of deal.

but then you cant go visit them in the hospital!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Con_Alma;1027448 wrote:It's laughable that you thingk gaining the ability to marriage is aquiring a human right. Getting married isn't a right. The proof of that is the afct that people need permission to do it.

If you need permission, it isn't right. That's what was laughable.

The right to marry is an extension of the right to freely contract with whom you choose and have those promises and the property rights that come with them enforced by the courts. A marriage is just a particular type of contract wherein the promises are about love and affection etc. Gays just want their governments to enforce their promises to one another like governments enforce promises of love and affection between straights.

You saying "the government needs to get out of marriage" is akin to saying that the government should find marriage contracts void as against public policy and that the promises therein will not be enforced. Maybe you think marital promises of fidelity and lifelong commitment, etc. are silly and there's no good reason for a government to enforce such fleeting oaths.

BoatShoes;1030061 wrote:The right to marry is an extension of the right to freely contract with whom you choose and have those promises and the property rights that come with them enforced by the courts. A marriage is just a particular type of contract wherein the promises are about love and affection etc. Gays just want their governments to enforce their promises to one another like governments enforce promises of love and affection between straights. ...

Not true. Marriage is not at all an extension of the right to freely contract with whom you choose . Isn't that the whole contention here?

My point is that we should have the right to contract with whomever we choose and there should be NO REQUIREMENT, or license to do so. Having stipulation surrounding that license and those stipulations varying by State is making the contract valid if the State sanctions it or permits it based on their terms. It's my opinion that the State should not be requirednor permitted to sanction the formalizations of such personal relationships. Clearly I am in the minority.

BoatShoes;1030061 wrote:...You saying "the government needs to get out of marriage" is akin to saying that the government should find marriage contracts void as against public policy and that the promises therein will not be enforced. ...

Also not true. I have never said the "government" shouldn't enforce such or "get out of" such contracts but rather the said State not be required to enter into such a contract.

BoatShoes;1030061 wrote:...Maybe you think marital promises of fidelity and lifelong commitment, etc. are silly and there's no good reason for a government to enforce such fleeting oaths.

Maybe some do indeed think this. I don't.

Con_Alma;1027448 wrote:It's laughable that you thingk gaining the ability to marriage is aquiring a human right. Getting married isn't a right. The proof of that is the afct that people need permission to do it.

If you need permission, it isn't right. That's what was laughable.

With marriage you do not have to have to ask permission in order to exercise the right, you have to fulfill certain requirements, the same is true of the right of suffrage.
With both you have to be a certain age. You have to register or get a license. There maybe a residency requirement. But that does not make either of them not basic rights.
According to the Supreme Court in the Loving Case“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1