Gay marriage legal in MD

[Toxick]

If the founders were of Islam, then this country would have Islamic undertones.

But then it would not have been founded on freedom from tyranny and oppression.

 

[BS Gal]

I'm bored of this entire thread.

Bye bye now.

 

[MMDad]

He was in theprocess of trying to become a unix and getting himself castrated.

I think you people have gotten off topic. What's really important here is these poor programmers who have to get castrated to use UNIX. I admit, every UNIX user I have had the misfortune of working with was a freak, and deserved to be sterilized, but isn't castration going a little far?

 

[Toxick]

I think you people have gotten off topic. What's really important here is these poor programmers who have to get castrated to use UNIX. I admit, every UNIX user I have had the misfortune of working with was a freak, and deserved to be sterilized, but isn't castration going a little far?

I am a Eunuchs programmer and I'm offended by this post.



Of course, I don't have the balls to back that up. *rimshot*

 

[vraiblonde]

I am a Eunuchs programmer and I'm offended by this post.



Of course, I don't have the balls to back that up. *rimshot*

 

[ajhkmr97]

It would be perfectly fine with me. They want to be able to express themselves just as straight couples do. To have the same benifits and rights as straight couples do. They are not seeking to go to church. And I don't see this country being founded on religious pricipals so much as it was founded on freedom and freedom from tyranny and oppression. The religious aspects of it are just a by-product of the men who founded this country. If the founders were of Islam, then this country would have Islamic undertones. This country was not founded by people seeking religious freedom, that was only one very small group of colonists. It was founded as a country free from an oppresive King.

Well said! Society today is seeking religious freedom - freedom from it that is and THAT is the reason so many who are religious (which is a majority and not a minority) are clinging to words such as "marriage" - it is a church founded institution. Civil unions are a socially founded institution.

Once again, until America becomes 100% religion free in its government - wording and practice - legislation will always continue to have religious undertones/overtones. Do you (or anyone else) agree with that being the case?

 

[RoseRed]

 

[Bustem' Down]

Well said! Society today is seeking religious freedom - freedom from it that is and THAT is the reason so many who are religious (which is a majority and not a minority) are clinging to words such as "marriage" - it is a church founded institution. Civil unions are a socially founded institution.

Once again, until America becomes 100% religion free in its government - wording and practice - legislation will always continue to have religious undertones/overtones. Do you (or anyone else) agree with that being the case?

So the whole argument is fighting over the meaning of a word. That's rather silly you know. I can find many other things that are more worth my time than how someone defines a word.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Glad you feel that way.






Something I posted a few years back...


The oldest manuscripts of ancient writers like Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus (among other) amounts to a small number of copies that were made a thousand years or more after the originals were written. There are no more then ten manuscripts of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, and the oldest copy of that was written over 900 years later than the original. Scholars accept these documents as adequate reprentations of the originals.

Why not the bible?

The earliest portions of The New Testament date to within just 25 years of the originals. Some nearly complete books of the new testament date to within one century or less from the originals. And we're not even talking about a handful of copies that can be compared with one another to determine accuracy or consistance. There are nearly 25,000 complete manuscripts of the New Testament, with more than 15,000 that date to before the 7th Century A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer). These include 5,300 copies in the original Greek, over 10,000 in Latin Vulgate, 4,100 Slavic tranlations, 2,000 Ethiopian thranslations and about 1,000 other early translations.

Further, in the first centuries after Christ, thousands of letters, and other documents were written in which people quoted from other documents that would later be assembled into what was to become the New Testament.. These quotes are so extensive that even if there wasn't a single bible in existence, you could go back to those letters and documents and using only those written within 250 years after the death of Christ, you could find every word of the New Testament, with the exception of 11 verses.

There are small differences in all those manuscripts - however, all these differences, most are a matter of spelling or word order changes that were made as the styles changed over the ages. In fact a total of only about 200 words, or 1/10 of 1 percent of the entire new testament are subject to more than trivial differences. And no single doctrine of Christiantiy in all it's denominations througout history depend on a piece of disputed text.


As for the Old Testament, the discovey of the Dead Sea Scrolls show that in over 2,000 years those who copied the Old testament were so meticulous that no significant changes were made to the texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent a major library of over 800 total documents dating between 250 B.C. to 68 A.D. Every book of the Old Testament is included except for some minor prophets, and Esther.




I can provide citations for all the above facts, if anyone's remotely interested. Might take a while for me to dig that stuff back up though...

Thanks for reposting that.

Funny that no one doubts Homer, Aristotle, Plato, or Herodotus and the veracity of their works, but the Bible is a worthless book translated too many times and no one knows the real truth or the texts according to those that don't want to believe it.

 

[ajhkmr97]

So the whole argument is fighting over the meaning of a word. That's rather silly you know. I can find many other things that are more worth my time than how someone defines a word.

This could perhaps be the case. I dunno but it is definately a possibility. Many want a true seperation of church and state but the majority of society does not want that to be 100%. If the government (for religion sake and to appease the majority) simply passed legislation for "marrages" and "civil unions" - giving both equal benefits - then the issue of gay marriages may not be a national issue - just an issue for ONLY the churches of America to deal with.

Would you agree?

 

[SAHRAB]

Thanks for reposting that.

Funny that no one doubts Homer, Aristotle, Plato, or Herodotus and the veracity of their works, but the Bible is a worthless book translated too many times and no one knows the real truth or the texts according to those that don't want to believe it.

So your comparing the Bible with works of fiction?

 

[SAHRAB]

This could perhaps be the case. I dunno but it is definately a possibility. Many want a true seperation of church and state but the majority of society does not want that to be 100%. If the government (for religion sake and to appease the majority) simply passed legislation for "marrages" and "civil unions" - giving both equal benefits - then the issue of gay marriages may not be a national issue - just an issue for ONLY the churches of America to deal with.

Would you agree?

Its still a "national" issue, in so far as what is the status of Someone who lives in Massachussettes (sp?) (where i believe same sex marriage is legal) and then moves to Utah (where it isnt legal).
if its not addressed you are then forcing Utah to recognize same sex marriage.

that was the only reason i agreed with any sort of National Same Sex marriage amendment.

 

[2ndAmendment]

So your comparing the Bible with works of fiction?

Sigh. No.

What I am saying is that no one doubts the content of the books that are derived from the few manuscripts of the works of Homer, Aristotle, Plato, or Herodotus although some might disagree with you that all their works were fiction. But when it come to the Bible and overwhelming evidence of the truth of the translations we read today, few choose to believe.

 

[SAHRAB]

Sigh. No.

What I am saying is that no one doubts the content of the books that are derived from the few manuscripts of the works of Homer, Aristotle, Plato, or Herodotus although some might disagree with you that all their works were fiction. But when it come to the Bible and overwhelming evidence of the truth of the translations we read today, few choose to believe.

Truth of Translations is one thing, Truth as far as a factual accounting is something totally different.

not picking on you, but you brought up the works of fiction.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Truth of Translations is one thing, Truth as far as a factual accounting is something totally different.

not picking on you, but you brought up the works of fiction.

Many think the account of Troy is not a work of fiction.

And yes you are. It is a common form of entertainment on the board to try to spin up 2A.

 

[SAHRAB]

Many think the account of Troy is not a work of fiction.

And the same could be said for the depictions of Alantis.

the same argument could be made for the Bible. it would just be an uncomfortable argument since many have to much invested in believing it.

no i'm not, i respect the fact that you have a belief. i think your a little heavy handed with it, but you are also trying to use your beliefs as an argument against same sex marriage. thats my only issue with you

 

[MMDad]

I think you people have gotten off topic. What's really important here is these poor programmers who have to get castrated to use UNIX. I admit, every UNIX user I have had the misfortune of working with was a freak, and deserved to be sterilized, but isn't castration going a little far?

Gay marriage legal in MD 01-24-2006 03:03 PM I'm a UNIX user.

I guess that explains not having the balls to sign your Karma!

 

[Bustem' Down]

This could perhaps be the case. I dunno but it is definately a possibility. Many want a true seperation of church and state but the majority of society does not want that to be 100%. If the government (for religion sake and to appease the majority) simply passed legislation for "marrages" and "civil unions" - giving both equal benefits - then the issue of gay marriages may not be a national issue - just an issue for ONLY the churches of America to deal with.

Would you agree?

That is how it works. I take a woman, I go down to the courthouse, I get a licence to get married. I get a JP to say "You are married." And I walk out, with no ounce of religion involved and it's still called a marrage. There should be no reason why homosexuals should not be able to do the same thing.

 

[2ndAmendment]

And the same could be said for the depictions of Alantis.

the same argument could be made for the Bible. it would just be an uncomfortable argument since many have to much invested in believing it.

no i'm not, i respect the fact that you have a belief. i think your a little heavy handed with it, but you are also trying to use your beliefs as an argument against same sex marriage. thats my only issue with you

As much as people try to deny or change history, the United States was founded on largely Christian principles. This quote reflects the statements by many of the founders.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams (Address to the Military, 11 October 1798) Reference: America's God and Country (10-11)

 

[Bustem' Down]

And the same could be said for the depictions of Alantis.

Except that archeologists have found the sight of Troy and historians more and more are coming around that what Homer wrote was, when you take away the religious embelleshments, an historical work. Atlantis is still mythology and cannot really be compared with Troy.