|
On August 09 2010 04:20 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard? Seriously people would be up in arms if, say, a mormon judge had ruled the other way.
You could argue that this very example is how Prop 8 got passed in the first place.
|
On August 09 2010 04:45 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard? For one thing, being gay isn't illegal. Being polygamous is, therefore the judge would have already have committed a crime. Anyways, I'm sure it affects the judge's decision because I don't believe an objective judiciary is possible, but I'm not sure that it should take much importance, unless the judge were specifically conservative except for that one issue.
How does one "be polygamous" without being married in the same way that one can "be gay" without being married? By having 2+ fiancees? I don't think that's illegal-- to have more than one steady partner I mean. I could very well be mistaken, though-- sexual ethics laws are an astounding mystery to me. My girlfriend has had girlfriends while we've been together, with a healthy and deep emotional connection. I wouldn't hold it against her if she had felt love for any of them in the same way she felt love for me. I would certainly be pissed if we were harassed for that situation.
If it's not illegal to have multiple partners, then polygamists are in much the same boat as homosexuals-- you can live your lifestyle, but you can't be married.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 09 2010 05:05 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 04:45 Jibba wrote:On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard? For one thing, being gay isn't illegal. Being polygamous is, therefore the judge would have already have committed a crime. Anyways, I'm sure it affects the judge's decision because I don't believe an objective judiciary is possible, but I'm not sure that it should take much importance, unless the judge were specifically conservative except for that one issue. How does one "be polygamous" without being married in the same way that one can "be gay" without being married? By having 2+ fiancees? I don't think that's illegal-- to have more than one steady partner I mean. I could very well be mistaken, though-- sexual ethics laws are an astounding mystery to me. My girlfriend has had girlfriends while we've been together, with a healthy and deep emotional connection. I wouldn't hold it against her if she had felt love for any of them in the same way she felt love for me. I would certainly be pissed if we were harassed for that situation. If it's not illegal to have multiple partners, then polygamists are in much the same boat as homosexuals-- you can live your lifestyle, but you can't be married.
Polygamy entails marriage. His question wasn't about similarities or differences between their cases, it was about the judge's personal life. A polygamous judge would already be breaking the law, while a gay judge is not.
If it were simply a judge with multiple partners, I don't think anyone would care, assuming they were open relationships.
EDIT: Whether people should care is a totally different issue.
|
On August 09 2010 05:10 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 05:05 neohero9 wrote:On August 09 2010 04:45 Jibba wrote:On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard? For one thing, being gay isn't illegal. Being polygamous is, therefore the judge would have already have committed a crime. Anyways, I'm sure it affects the judge's decision because I don't believe an objective judiciary is possible, but I'm not sure that it should take much importance, unless the judge were specifically conservative except for that one issue. How does one "be polygamous" without being married in the same way that one can "be gay" without being married? By having 2+ fiancees? I don't think that's illegal-- to have more than one steady partner I mean. I could very well be mistaken, though-- sexual ethics laws are an astounding mystery to me. My girlfriend has had girlfriends while we've been together, with a healthy and deep emotional connection. I wouldn't hold it against her if she had felt love for any of them in the same way she felt love for me. I would certainly be pissed if we were harassed for that situation. If it's not illegal to have multiple partners, then polygamists are in much the same boat as homosexuals-- you can live your lifestyle, but you can't be married. Polygamy entails marriage. His question wasn't about similarities or differences between their cases, it was about the judge's personal life. A polygamous judge would already be breaking the law, while a gay judge is not. If it were simply a judge with multiple partners, I don't think anyone would care, assuming they were open relationships.
Yeah, that was what I was asking for clarification for. Ty ~.^
|
On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement.
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 09 2010 05:16 TheGeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
|
On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard?
The judge disclosed to both sides that he was gay before the trial. Neither side had a problem with it, the end.
|
On August 09 2010 05:20 GogoKodo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard? The judge disclosed to both sides that he was gay before the trial. Neither side had a problem with it, the end.
Until now.
|
On August 09 2010 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 05:20 GogoKodo wrote:On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard? The judge disclosed to both sides that he was gay before the trial. Neither side had a problem with it, the end. Until now.
Haha.
|
On August 09 2010 05:20 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 05:16 TheGeo wrote:On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement. I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
The bible - real events that were wildly embellished then used thousands of years later as moral justification for inhumane / illogical actions. (The only reason why gay marriage is illegal anywhere is because religious people think it is bad for humanity or some bs like that. Homosexuality is a sin? Well, stupidity should be a sin as well!)
|
On November 05 2008 05:29 d_so wrote:
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
Uhm, no that isn't true. There were plenty of reasons why people got married, biological need aside. I don't see how you can argue that if you know anything about history. Do you for instance believe arranged marriages was all about making babies?
|
My disdain for the Abrahamic religions parallels your own, but opening that can of worms in this thread is probably not going to end well.
|
On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard?
Hi. You clearly have not even read a summary of the decision.
read
|
On August 09 2010 05:30 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 05:29 d_so wrote:
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
Uhm, no that isn't true. There were plenty of reasons why people got married, biological need aside. I don't see how you can argue that if you know anything about history. Do you for instance believe arranged marriages was all about making babies?
Exactly. I think it's quite clear that marriage is primarily a societal device that regulates sex. In any sane culture it also responsabilized men as well as women where children are concerned. Just because gays can't procreate using their partner doesn't mean that the shackle functions don't work anymore. Marriage, if it has any real merits at all anymore, retains these merits regardless of sexual orientation. Duuuuuuuh
I've never heard an argument against gay marriage that doesn't sound like a pathetic ploy to keep this minority in their place. Well, other than the argument that marriage is hell.
|
Blacks should go back to working the fields and cleaning our houses.
Bitches should quit their jobs and get back to the kitchen and raise our babies.
Fags shouldnt exist. Therefore, my friends and family shouldnt have to hear about their lifestyle.
Train of thought evolves through time..no?
|
On August 09 2010 05:20 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 05:16 TheGeo wrote:On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement. I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources.
same can be said of spiderman and nyc
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 09 2010 06:36 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 05:20 Myles wrote:On August 09 2010 05:16 TheGeo wrote:On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement. I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources. same can be said of spiderman and nyc
Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible.
|
On August 09 2010 06:45 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 06:36 Sadist wrote:On August 09 2010 05:20 Myles wrote:On August 09 2010 05:16 TheGeo wrote:On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement. I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources. same can be said of spiderman and nyc Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible.
historical accuracy of the bible can be comparable to any fictional novel. In Spiderman there are police cars that look similar to police cars now, NYC is similar, there are newspapers, etc. The list goes on and on. Claiming that their are historical things in the bible is pointless.
|
On August 09 2010 06:56 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 06:45 Myles wrote:On August 09 2010 06:36 Sadist wrote:On August 09 2010 05:20 Myles wrote:On August 09 2010 05:16 TheGeo wrote:On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement. I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources. same can be said of spiderman and nyc Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible. historical accuracy of the bible can be comparable to any fictional novel. In Spiderman there are police cars that look similar to police cars now, NYC is similar, there are newspapers, etc. The list goes on and on. Claiming that their are historical things in the bible is pointless.
Yo guys, Archaeologists think they found Troy. You better not disturb Scylla.
|
On August 09 2010 06:56 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 06:45 Myles wrote:On August 09 2010 06:36 Sadist wrote:On August 09 2010 05:20 Myles wrote:On August 09 2010 05:16 TheGeo wrote:On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Lol the Bible is not documentation. Its the mad writing of mentally damaged people with voices in there head who thought Jesus was more than a lunatic. Also, plenty of people marry with 0 religious reason/involvement. I'm not going to argue the merits of the religion in the bible, but most events that are written about in the bible are confirmed by other historical sources. same can be said of spiderman and nyc Huh? This really isn't the thread for it, but what historical sources describe spiderman and nyc(?). The bible is confirmed by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, as well as other minor powers in the area. Archeological digs in the area has also found many of the cities and artifacts referred to in the bible. historical accuracy of the bible can be comparable to any fictional novel. In Spiderman there are police cars that look similar to police cars now, NYC is similar, there are newspapers, etc. The list goes on and on. Claiming that their are historical things in the bible is pointless.
That there are stories in the Bible that are corroborated with historical records and stories in other mythos, I think is what Myles is talking about. Less about the "how things looked" aspect (Spidey NYC police cars vs actual NYC police cars) but rather "what happened" (Spidey thwarting crooks vs Spidey being a guy in a suit at Universal Studios).
The accuracy and scale of those stories is certainly to be questioned, but many of the events can be confirmed.
EDIT: We really need to stem this conversation right now, as it's heavily off-topic. This thread is about CA's ban on gay marriage and its recent overturn in Federal court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
