I'll take your absurd little world, and bring it along to it's logical conclusion.
The Mini Cooper and Smart Cars (together with their Hummer and F 150 counterparts) have a tough time cause they cannot spend time together in the double garage body shop. The older cars, the Fairlanes and such, eventually rust out and end up at the pick a part. Auto society treats the Mini Coopers and the Smart Cars that are living together the way they want to be treated. Eventually, there are more and more Mini Coopers and Smart Cars living together, after all, this sort of thing has become encouraged. Soon, fewer and fewer new models are coming out, as Mini Coopers and Smart Cars cannot make new models - it's not their fault, it just works that way.
Then one fateful day, BAM! something happens to rock their little automotive world. An unsuspecting Yaris puts an AI brain into a coffee maker, and the entire automotive world is overwhelmed by Espresso machines and Brewmasters, because there wasn't enough of them to hold back the horde. The Model T's might have predicted the autocaust, but no one would have listened to them anyways because they were mean.
Is this what you actually believe will happen? I find it hard to believe a rational human being could convince themselves of this being the "logical" outcome of gay marriage being legalized.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Is this what you actually believe will happen? I find it hard to believe a rational human being could convince themselves of this being the "logical" outcome of gay marriage being legalized.
Of course not, don't be absurd.
It would most likely be Laptops that take out the automobiles, not Coffeemakers. Duh.
There used to be a website buyblue.org that listed the companies that were run by executives that contributed heavily or the company contributed heavily to conservative candidates and causes. This was there list of strong blue companies:
Academy Sports and Outdoors
AFC (popeye's chicken)
Aloha Airlines
Hess gas
Apple Computer
Bally Fitness
BancWest
Barnes and Noble
Bed Bath and Beyond
Benihana's
Black and Decker(which includes Price Fister and Kwikset)
Charming Shops including Fashion Bug and Lane Bryant
Costco
Electronic Arts
Gallo Wineries
Estee Lauder
Foot Locker
Fredericks of Hollywood
Gateway
Google
Hilton
Hyatt
Expedia
Jo Ann Stores
LL Bean
Levi Strauss
Linens and Things
Lenscrafters
Pearl Vision
Mattel
Overstock.com
Panera Bread
Polo Ralph Lauren
Progressive
Sharper Image
Sonic Driveins
Kay Jewelers
Starbucks
Starwood Hotels
Current "faith based" companies include In-N-out Burgers, hobby Lobby, Tysons foods (worlds largest chicken supplier), Jet Blue, Curves, Marriott, and Forever 21
__________________ I wish the heck I could like fish, I just hate the taste of it . . . I wish I could eat one, they look so good . . . - Gil Fisher (The Fishin' Musician):
There used to be a website buyblue.org that listed the companies that were run by executives that contributed heavily or the company contributed heavily to conservative candidates and causes. This was there list of strong blue companies:
Academy Sports and Outdoors
AFC (popeye's chicken)
Aloha Airlines
Hess gas
Apple Computer
Bally Fitness
BancWest
Barnes and Noble
Bed Bath and Beyond
Benihana's
Black and Decker(which includes Price Fister and Kwikset)
Charming Shops including Fashion Bug and Lane Bryant
Costco
Electronic Arts
Gallo Wineries
Estee Lauder
Foot Locker
Fredericks of Hollywood
Gateway
Google
Hilton
Hyatt
Expedia
Jo Ann Stores
LL Bean
Levi Strauss
Linens and Things
Lenscrafters
Pearl Vision
Mattel
Overstock.com
Panera Bread
Polo Ralph Lauren
Progressive
Sharper Image
Sonic Driveins
Kay Jewelers
Starbucks
Starwood Hotels
Current "faith based" companies include In-N-out Burgers, hobby Lobby, Tysons foods (worlds largest chicken supplier), Jet Blue, Curves, Marriott, and Forever 21
I think you'd have to look to see if those same companies donated to any democrats as well before you'd really have anything meaningful.
Would someone close this thread? At least on other forums i've been on I know talks like these are frowned upon and I know the author of the thread didn't intend for everyone to get into a religious and sexual debate but I've got half the mind to rant.. and you don't want that.
If you don't like mature, intelligent, and critical conversations that can be discussed rationally, stay on HFboards.
Yeah that list has to be from companies who support gay rights. Google and Starbucks are definitely companies who are pro-equal rights.
__________________
"**** you? Naw, son, I'm going to make you. Mother******* going to be wiping their ass with Johnnie Cochran's memory and carrying your business card in every damn pocket before we done."
My bad. You are all of course correct...I was digging up several old forum threads here and there and stumbled upon the list in a pro-conservative forum and posted without thinking too much about what the poster was actually saying. The companies I listed were indeed more supportive of democratic causes (To the above wondering how much money they gave to the other side, the list was made based on percetage of money. To be on that list over 80% donated money from executives and company went to democratic causes and candidates).
You won't take one man's word as law, yet the specific interpretations (noun: "a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style") of people from a specific type of society at a specific time with their own interests and agendas "stand the test of time"? Do they? For whom?
What are you talking about? We have nearly 2000 years of consistant scholarship on the subject. That scholarship has come to the same conclusion regardless of which society has done the work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by etherealgirl
Here's an interesting article for you by a Baptist pastor who is also a professor of religious studies, who actually is an expert on the bible's perspective on sexuality and marriage:
"If we do take the time to read the Bible, we are likely to discover that the biblical writers do not agree with us, whatever version of sexual morality we are seeking to promote. Written more than 2,000 years ago at a significant historical and cultural distance, the Bible gathers together a diverse collection of ancient books, edited over time, not a coherent, divinely inspired set of instructions that can easily be applied.
...
Let's begin with an easy target: "biblical marriage." Despite frequent claims to the contrary, not a single biblical book endorses marriage between one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation. Directed at men, the laws attributed to Moses assume that Israelites will marry as many wives as they can reasonably support. By contrast, when Jesus speaks about marriage, he largely warns against it, presenting family life as a distracting waste of time. The apostle Paul follows suit, teaching that celibacy is the best choice for Jesus' followers. He recommends marriage only as a concession to those unable to keep their sexual impulses in check. Later New Testament writers do sanction marriage, but not for the sake of procreation and romantic love. Instead, marriage is portrayed as a venue for testing the fitness of male church leaders, who are told to love their wives and to be kind to their slaves. Wives, children and slaves, however, must obey the men in charge, no matter what, and this in a culture where the sexual access of masters to their slaves was simply presupposed. Biblical books never speak to marriage as currently practiced in the US and what they do say is totally contradictory."
Your women pastor neglected to insert scriptures into her article. Moreover, she neglected to consider many important passages on the subject of marriage: Eph 5:25-33 comes to mind.
The greek word "aner'" is translated "man" 156 times in my KJV and "husband" 50 times.
The greek word "gune'" is translated "man" 129 times in the KJV and "wife" 92 times.
There is no time where the New Testament uses a masculine word for wife or a feminine word for husband. Also, most greek nouns have an artcle attached to it that is either masculine, feminine, or neutral. It is a very specific language. I have never seen a masculine article attached to "gune'" or a feminine artcle attached to the word "aner'".
You and your Pastor can deny scriptures and pretend God agrees with you all you want. The fact remains biblical marriage is between a man and a women. Was polygamy practiced in biblical times? Sure, men did all kinds of things. In the New Testament that disqualified a man from church office.
What are you talking about? We have nearly 2000 years of consistant scholarship on the subject. That scholarship has come to the same conclusion regardless of which society has done the work.
Your women pastor neglected to insert scriptures into her article. Moreover, she neglected to consider many important passages on the subject of marriage: Eph 5:25-33 comes to mind.
Wow, the misogyny is just dripping in this post.
__________________
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CaramonLS For This Useful Post:
I really don't understand your argument. This issue has nothing to do with sex or "making provisions for oneself" (whatever that means). Same sex marriage advocates (or equal marriage advocates) are simply saying that this lesbian couple should be entitled to the same treatment as a man and woman in a similarly committed relationship. You have still not provided a principled or rational reason why they should not.
I have identified the history that caused our governments to licence marriages. It was to protect women who were at a disadvantage physically and economically in a marriage. The possibility of children resulting in the union added to this vulnerability. Also, this particular union was seen as a benefit to society and tax credits and such were added to help marriages.
In same sex marriages both people have the same economic advantages. They are equal to single people. Their relationship presumably benefits each of them personally and should help them financially as well. Why should the government be involved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
In my view, this talk of biblical interpretation is really a red herring. Your bible and its interpretations (or Textcritic's interpretations) are irrelevant to the same sex marriage issue.
I think you will have to talk to Thor and others to find out why biblical interpretation was brought into this discussion. I'm just responding to his challenge.
What are you talking about? We have nearly 2000 years of consistant scholarship on the subject. That scholarship has come to the same conclusion regardless of which society has done the work.
Your women pastor neglected to insert scriptures into her article. Moreover, she neglected to consider many important passages on the subject of marriage: Eph 5:25-33 comes to mind.
The greek word "aner'" is translated "man" 156 times in my KJV and "husband" 50 times.
The greek word "gune'" is translated "man" 129 times in the KJV and "wife" 92 times.
There is no time where the New Testament uses a masculine word for wife or a feminine word for husband. Also, most greek nouns have an artcle attached to it that is either masculine, feminine, or neutral. It is a very specific language. I have never seen a masculine article attached to "gune'" or a feminine artcle attached to the word "aner'".
You and your Pastor can deny scriptures and pretend God agrees with you all you want. The fact remains biblical marriage is between a man and a women. Was polygamy practiced in biblical times? Sure, men did all kinds of things. In the New Testament that disqualified a man from church office.
All that there kinda ignores the whole truth spoken by that "woman pastor" below:
"Written more than 2,000 years ago at a significant historical and cultural distance, the Bible gathers together a diverse collection of ancient books, edited over time, not a coherent, divinely inspired set of instructions that can easily be applied."
Hence any interpretation of the said scriptures aren't the be all end all to the morality of life on Earth. Gay people just want the ability to be with the one they love and have that relationship be accepted by the broader community just like any straight couple. Why does something like that have to be denied because of Greek translations of ancient books?
[QUOTE=Cowboy89;3811859]All that there kinda ignores the whole truth spoken by that "woman pastor" below:
"Written more than 2,000 years ago at a significant historical and cultural distance, the Bible gathers together a diverse collection of ancient books, edited over time, not a coherent, divinely inspired set of instructions that can easily be applied."
Hence any interpretation of the said scriptures aren't the be all end all to the morality of life on Earth. Gay people just want the ability to be with the one they love and have that relationship be accepted by the broader community just like any straight couple. Why does something like that have to be denied because of Greek translations of ancient books?[/QUOTE]
Firstly, it is a coherant(even if she doesn't get it) divinely inspired(even if she doesn't believe it) set of instructions that can easily be applied(even if she refuses to apply them).
Secondly, acceptance is a little much to ask. How about tolerance and privacy?
Thirdly, Greek is the original language of those ancient books. It is not a translation.
