Have we regressed to dickwaving join dates here? Did we merge with the GameFAQs forum?
that is what i had been wondering
Early 2005, bitch, get that weak stuff outta here!
i mean, that phoney guy was so upset that i didn't know who he was, poor lil duder
I don't understand why you just had to mention the fact that you had no idea who he was
because how often does a dude you've never spoken to before try and chew your nuts off beyond all logical reason. the dude thought i made one mistake, and sat on it and cried for hours, it was so silly
"Killing is wrong unless the invisible man in the sky tells me it's okay." is why I am scared of people who say that religious people are more moral than nonreligious people.
Well something has to justify the military conflicts pre AD
I stated before hand that it was one of those obligatory statements everyone makes and I recognize it will mean nothing to most everyone.
It's not obligatory, it's asinine. It's an insult to everyone else's intelligence.
Hell, I've got a friend who was born Mormon. Does that mean that I can go around declaring that Mormons are inherently flawed?
K, so I'm not all that great with words. Sorry.
The reality is that someone called into question wether or not I think gays are gross. I don't and the only way I can maybe back that up is to show that I have gay friends, who I care about, and continuously hang out with. Is there a better way to defend myself when someone is calling into question my non-bigotry?
You're a bigot. Deal with it.
You don't have to think that Gays are "gross" to be a bigot. The fact that you are opposed to them having the same freedoms as others is enough to make you a bigot. Your reason can be based on the bible, but that doesn't magically make you not a bigot.
The only thing worse than a bigot is a bigot who refuses to at least stand behind his convictions.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
Have we regressed to dickwaving join dates here? Did we merge with the GameFAQs forum?
that is what i had been wondering
Early 2005, bitch, get that weak stuff outta here!
i mean, that phoney guy was so upset that i didn't know who he was, poor lil duder
I don't understand why you just had to mention the fact that you had no idea who he was
because how often does a dude you've never spoken to before try and chew your nuts off beyond all logical reason. the dude thought i made one mistake, and sat on it and cried for hours, it was so silly
Haha, boy you are dumb.
WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO KEEP ON ABOUT THIS
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
I think the first girl I ever wanted to fuck was a Mormon
but it was just because I was living in Utah at the time those feelings first popped up that it worked out like that, it's not any inherent attraction to Mormon chicks on my part
she had tremendous boobs though
it's the special underwear
There was one girl who like liked me, and we talked on the phone like, twice, and hung out on the playground at recess a couple times tops
and she and her friends legitimately thought that meant we were dating and I was like "you Utah chicks is crazy, I ain't wanna be tied down to one of you, we're 12, bitch"
"Killing is wrong unless the invisible man in the sky tells me it's okay." is why I am scared of people who say that religious people are more moral than nonreligious people.
Well something has to justify the military conflicts pre AD
Hey, post-AD, too.
DarkPrimus on
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
"Killing is wrong unless the invisible man in the sky tells me it's okay." is why I am scared of people who say that religious people are more moral than nonreligious people.
Well something has to justify the military conflicts pre AD
We want your land and you won't move.
I'm in the mood for killing and you happen to be in the way, also you got cool stuff I want.
I think the first girl I ever wanted to fuck was a Mormon
but it was just because I was living in Utah at the time those feelings first popped up that it worked out like that, it's not any inherent attraction to Mormon chicks on my part
she had tremendous boobs though
it's the special underwear
There was one girl who like liked me, and we talked on the phone like, twice, and hung out on the playground at recess a couple times tops
and she and her friends legitimately thought that meant we were dating and I was like "you Utah chicks is crazy, I ain't wanna be tied down to one of you, we're 12, bitch"
not, you know, in those words though
is that when you had your first child
humble on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
I stated before hand that it was one of those obligatory statements everyone makes and I recognize it will mean nothing to most everyone.
It's not obligatory, it's asinine. It's an insult to everyone else's intelligence.
Hell, I've got a friend who was born Mormon. Does that mean that I can go around declaring that Mormons are inherently flawed?
K, so I'm not all that great with words. Sorry.
The reality is that someone called into question wether or not I think gays are gross. I don't and the only way I can maybe back that up is to show that I have gay friends, who I care about, and continuously hang out with. Is there a better way to defend myself when someone is calling into question my non-bigotry?
You're a bigot. Deal with it.
You don't have to think that Gays are "gross" to be a bigot. The fact that you are opposed to them having the same freedoms as others is enough to make you a bigot. Your reason can be based on the bible, but that doesn't magically make you not a bigot.
The only thing worse than a bigot is a bigot who refuses to at least stand behind his convictions.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
You want them to be exactly equal to you in every way, only you want to be able to control how they use language and practice their faith because yours is better.
I think the first girl I ever wanted to fuck was a Mormon
but it was just because I was living in Utah at the time those feelings first popped up that it worked out like that, it's not any inherent attraction to Mormon chicks on my part
she had tremendous boobs though
it's the special underwear
There was one girl who like liked me, and we talked on the phone like, twice, and hung out on the playground at recess a couple times tops
and she and her friends legitimately thought that meant we were dating and I was like "you Utah chicks is crazy, I ain't wanna be tied down to one of you, we're 12, bitch"
not, you know, in those words though
is that when you had your first child
Could be
I didn't stick around to see if she carried it to term
I think the first girl I ever wanted to fuck was a Mormon
but it was just because I was living in Utah at the time those feelings first popped up that it worked out like that, it's not any inherent attraction to Mormon chicks on my part
she had tremendous boobs though
it's the special underwear
There was one girl who like liked me, and we talked on the phone like, twice, and hung out on the playground at recess a couple times tops
and she and her friends legitimately thought that meant we were dating and I was like "you Utah chicks is crazy, I ain't wanna be tied down to one of you, we're 12, bitch"
Have we regressed to dickwaving join dates here? Did we merge with the GameFAQs forum?
that is what i had been wondering
Early 2005, bitch, get that weak stuff outta here!
i mean, that phoney guy was so upset that i didn't know who he was, poor lil duder
I don't understand why you just had to mention the fact that you had no idea who he was
because how often does a dude you've never spoken to before try and chew your nuts off beyond all logical reason. the dude thought i made one mistake, and sat on it and cried for hours, it was so silly
Haha, boy you are dumb.
WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO KEEP ON ABOUT THIS
It's kind of what he does. If you'd have been around long enough you'd know that!
Have we regressed to dickwaving join dates here? Did we merge with the GameFAQs forum?
that is what i had been wondering
Early 2005, bitch, get that weak stuff outta here!
i mean, that phoney guy was so upset that i didn't know who he was, poor lil duder
I don't understand why you just had to mention the fact that you had no idea who he was
because how often does a dude you've never spoken to before try and chew your nuts off beyond all logical reason. the dude thought i made one mistake, and sat on it and cried for hours, it was so silly
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Marathon on
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
I stated before hand that it was one of those obligatory statements everyone makes and I recognize it will mean nothing to most everyone.
It's not obligatory, it's asinine. It's an insult to everyone else's intelligence.
Hell, I've got a friend who was born Mormon. Does that mean that I can go around declaring that Mormons are inherently flawed?
K, so I'm not all that great with words. Sorry.
The reality is that someone called into question wether or not I think gays are gross. I don't and the only way I can maybe back that up is to show that I have gay friends, who I care about, and continuously hang out with. Is there a better way to defend myself when someone is calling into question my non-bigotry?
You're a bigot. Deal with it.
You don't have to think that Gays are "gross" to be a bigot. The fact that you are opposed to them having the same freedoms as others is enough to make you a bigot. Your reason can be based on the bible, but that doesn't magically make you not a bigot.
The only thing worse than a bigot is a bigot who refuses to at least stand behind his convictions.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
You want them to be exactly equal to you in every way, only you want to be able to control how they use language and practice their faith because yours is better.
So yeah, you're a bigot.
Come on now, separate but equal has a long history of working well.
Have we regressed to dickwaving join dates here? Did we merge with the GameFAQs forum?
that is what i had been wondering
Early 2005, bitch, get that weak stuff outta here!
i mean, that phoney guy was so upset that i didn't know who he was, poor lil duder
I don't understand why you just had to mention the fact that you had no idea who he was
because how often does a dude you've never spoken to before try and chew your nuts off beyond all logical reason. the dude thought i made one mistake, and sat on it and cried for hours, it was so silly
Haha, boy you are dumb.
WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO KEEP ON ABOUT THIS
It's kind of what he does. If you'd have been around long enough you'd know that!
Working on it.
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
I think its the Babylonian one? The line "That is which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go forth and learn."
I think its like Shabbat 30 or 31? I am terrible with the way chapters are set up in bibles and such
Man, I LOVE the teachings of Hillel.
You ought to read Pirke Av'ot, which mostly ignores the Torah, and instead just collects advice from the ancient sages. It is full of bits like that. My favorite line (which is from the same guy) is "If I am not for myself who will be for me? And if I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when?
That is ridiculously cool, way to be, ancient sages
but I am still not 100% clear on what the Talmud is, I get that its a collection of rabbianic (? is that the right word) conversations and treatises, but why was it created, and who was it really intended for?
Oh man. This is the kind of question that I DREAM of.
The ultra-orthodox believe that the Talmud (sometimes refered to as the Oral Law, in juxtaposition to the Torah/Tannakh which is called the Written Law) was told to Moses on Mount Sinai, alongside the written Torah. This is, of course, crazy, but this concept is what justifies the laws within the Talmud being treated as divine law.
What the Talmud ACTUALLY is, is the transcription of debates between ancient sages over how to interpret the 613 biblical laws to apply to more specific facets of every day life. These kinds of discussions still occur today, of course, as new things happen all the time, and Rabbinical Law rulings are needed to determine how Judaism will treat them (for example, in 0order for meat to be Kosher, it must come from an animal which had split hooves and chewed its cud. With genetic engineering and other biological innovations, it is possible in the future that meat might be grown in a lab, rather than harvested from an animal. In that situation, is it possible for this meat to be kosher, even if it is genetically from, say, a cow, since the specific physical specimen never had split hooves or cud-chewing?)
The Talmud started out as the Mishna, which is the ancient Sages, from Roman times, discussing the Bible itself. Then there is the Gemara, which is Sages from the later part of that Millenium discussing the Mishna, in much the way that the Mishnaic sages discussed the Bible. The structure continues on with layers upon layers of commentary. This is why a page of Talmud has texts of varying sizes crammed in to it's margins, because when these commentaries were first written, they were literally penned into the margins. One particular Rabbi, called Rashi, always has his commentary written in the inner margin of the page, next to the spine. This is because he is so revered that it was decided as some point that if any rats should get in to the books, the commentary of Rashi was the most important thing to protect.
I hope that's a good overview.
Evander on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
See now you are finally getting at why defense of marriage is dumb.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Seriously, this isn't the first time I heard a Mormon say something like this.
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Because other people having similar religious institutions that are slightly different but earn the same respect from the government is super scary.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
See now you are finally getting at why defense of marriage is dumb.
Ready for the obligatory statement of the thread? Here goes: I used to work under a gay man and had two gay co-workers. We hung out ALL the time. They were good dudes. I have nothing against them as people.
My statement about the whole rights thing is fairly unfounded, it was just a logical statement based on what I was responding to. Based on your knowledge, I was wrong, seeing as how I do know nothing about the Establishment Clause (D:).
The reality is that the sacred institution of marriage is important to me and, apparrently, the majority of california. Since we live and dictate the laws of the country through voting, beliefs are going to creep into the legislation. Just a fact of life. So until the majority don't find it important, marriage will only be between a man and woman because of democracy. Now civil unions, that would pass in a heartbeat and give homosexuals the same rights. I say we try to make it a federal thing while we are at it.
Yeah, ok, lemme break it down:
None of that shit has any place in our democracy. You can see my last post for more on this, but here's the Establishment Clause issue:
Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion
What this means is that we can have no legislation which establishes a legal edifice surrounding something which is purely religious. If you're going to treat marriage as something which is a "sacred institution," and therefore a religious issue, then you can't have legal recognition of it. We still have legal recognition of it, because it's been around longer than religion has, and having the institution serves the common good.
You have three options: the first is to attempt to demonstrate that marriage is a religious institution in which case you must either concede that any church performing a rite of union and calling it "marriage" must have equal access or that your religious institution has no right to state recognition. I can't imagine either of these are very appealing.
The second option is to recognize that marriage is a legal institution often separate from religion and attempt to demonstrate that allowing gays to marry harms the common good or threatens the public safety, or at least is exactly neutral. Good luck with that one.
The third option, and the one recognized and espoused by the leaders of the anti-gay marriage movement, is to recognize that your views on the issue are utterly contradictory to the spirit and intent of the First Amendment and therefore attempt to enforce your personal definitions of marriage on the populace by changing the various Constitutions of the States or of the Union. There is no justification in our society for legislative control of marriage the way it is controlled now. If you must have your way, if you must impose your definition of the institution on the entire country, you're going to have to do it through the Constitution.
Good luck in the California Supreme Court, btw. Jerry Brown is going to kick the pants off of Prop 8.
edit: also I don't know how I missed it, but prop 8 wasn't legislation, it was a Constitutional [strike]Amendment[/strike] Revision. If it were a piece of legislation, it could never be justified Constitutionally, as I explained above.
This is good stuff. I really don't have an answer to it unless you want me to start bull-shitting, hoping I can refute it. I'm not as well versed as you are and I'm glad you put it in those terms. I now have lots of research to do. Thank you.
I do find the current definition of marriage to be religiously sacred to me. Seeing as how that is the case, I guess I need to find a legal/secular position in which to defend keeping that definition intact. My ideals are important as anyone else's and should be allowed to be represented through our democratic government.
"Killing is wrong unless the invisible man in the sky tells me it's okay." is why I am scared of people who say that religious people are more moral than nonreligious people.
Well something has to justify the military conflicts pre AD
Hey, post-AD, too.
But to a lesser extent as nation-states came into being. Besides I was trying to more pointed statement without specifically naming parties.
I do find the current definition of marriage to be religiously sacred to me.
Good for you. Unfortunately the government of the United States recognizes marriages performed both religiously and secularly.
Seeing as how that is the case, I guess I need to find a legal/secular position in which to defend keeping that definition intact. My ideals are important as anyone else's and should be allowed to be represented through our democratic government.
Yes they should, until they start infringing on the rights of others.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Seriously, this isn't the first time I heard a Mormon say something like this.
This school of double-think is not exclusive to Mormons by any means, of course.
"Killing is wrong unless the invisible man in the sky tells me it's okay." is why I am scared of people who say that religious people are more moral than nonreligious people.
Well something has to justify the military conflicts pre AD
Hey, post-AD, too.
But to a lesser extent as nation-states came into being. Besides I was trying to more pointed statement without specifically naming parties.
Posts
Haha, boy you are dumb.
munkus
We want your land and you won't move.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
i would have, only she's in georgia and wanted me to drive down there in a month and yadda yadda and man fuck all that noise
bitch was mean
WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO KEEP ON ABOUT THIS
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
though i am also objectively a fuckhead
There was one girl who like liked me, and we talked on the phone like, twice, and hung out on the playground at recess a couple times tops
and she and her friends legitimately thought that meant we were dating and I was like "you Utah chicks is crazy, I ain't wanna be tied down to one of you, we're 12, bitch"
not, you know, in those words though
Hey, post-AD, too.
I'm in the mood for killing and you happen to be in the way, also you got cool stuff I want.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
is that when you had your first child
You want them to be exactly equal to you in every way, only you want to be able to control how they use language and practice their faith because yours is better.
So yeah, you're a bigot.
Could be
I didn't stick around to see if she carried it to term
8-)
Dude, he was 12
He had 3 wives and 8 kids by that point
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
It's kind of what he does. If you'd have been around long enough you'd know that!
seriously phonehand, shut the fuck up. you dumb.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Come on now, separate but equal has a long history of working well.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Working on it.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Oh man. This is the kind of question that I DREAM of.
The ultra-orthodox believe that the Talmud (sometimes refered to as the Oral Law, in juxtaposition to the Torah/Tannakh which is called the Written Law) was told to Moses on Mount Sinai, alongside the written Torah. This is, of course, crazy, but this concept is what justifies the laws within the Talmud being treated as divine law.
What the Talmud ACTUALLY is, is the transcription of debates between ancient sages over how to interpret the 613 biblical laws to apply to more specific facets of every day life. These kinds of discussions still occur today, of course, as new things happen all the time, and Rabbinical Law rulings are needed to determine how Judaism will treat them (for example, in 0order for meat to be Kosher, it must come from an animal which had split hooves and chewed its cud. With genetic engineering and other biological innovations, it is possible in the future that meat might be grown in a lab, rather than harvested from an animal. In that situation, is it possible for this meat to be kosher, even if it is genetically from, say, a cow, since the specific physical specimen never had split hooves or cud-chewing?)
The Talmud started out as the Mishna, which is the ancient Sages, from Roman times, discussing the Bible itself. Then there is the Gemara, which is Sages from the later part of that Millenium discussing the Mishna, in much the way that the Mishnaic sages discussed the Bible. The structure continues on with layers upon layers of commentary. This is why a page of Talmud has texts of varying sizes crammed in to it's margins, because when these commentaries were first written, they were literally penned into the margins. One particular Rabbi, called Rashi, always has his commentary written in the inner margin of the page, next to the spine. This is because he is so revered that it was decided as some point that if any rats should get in to the books, the commentary of Rashi was the most important thing to protect.
I hope that's a good overview.
See now you are finally getting at why defense of marriage is dumb.
Seriously, this isn't the first time I heard a Mormon say something like this.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Because other people having similar religious institutions that are slightly different but earn the same respect from the government is super scary.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
This is good stuff. I really don't have an answer to it unless you want me to start bull-shitting, hoping I can refute it. I'm not as well versed as you are and I'm glad you put it in those terms. I now have lots of research to do. Thank you.
I do find the current definition of marriage to be religiously sacred to me. Seeing as how that is the case, I guess I need to find a legal/secular position in which to defend keeping that definition intact. My ideals are important as anyone else's and should be allowed to be represented through our democratic government.
Lenny Kravitz is proof
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
My religion had marriage before your religion ever existed. Why should YOU get to say what is and isn't marriage?
Hell, marriage was around before my religion too.
And then decide it should just be the same award?
But to a lesser extent as nation-states came into being. Besides I was trying to more pointed statement without specifically naming parties.
Yes they should, until they start infringing on the rights of others.
You can try.
I have some pretty freaky dreams.
This school of double-think is not exclusive to Mormons by any means, of course.
Oh.
Okay.
Wanna play L4D?
Do you honestly think that it is okay to push your personal religious beliefs on other people through legislation?