Numinous

If you don't to head that way, you should avoid saying that gay marriage shouldn't be because marriage should be religious. By doing that, how can we not delve into the religious backing of that? Of course not all people are that respectful toward others' beliefs, but I just present rebuttal when I see any inaccuracy.

So... you're okay with gay marriage now or not? I'm confused.

Psst, here's the context given by the Second Epistle of Peter:

You can see that the context of the elevation is the events linked to the smiting of Sodom and Gomorrah's and the angels tidbit. It even alludes to that in the next segment:

Furthermore, this elevation of Lot paints the others' actions as "lawless deeds" that Lot was tormented by, but it never says Lot also did such "deeds", so I'm lead to assume that we're either to ignore the incest and drunken sex Lot practiced or that they're not "lawless deeds".

You're arguing favorably for restricting them from the same rights you enjoy and they're entitled to have by ethical corollaries. Like ACt said, you may not hate gays but you clearly see a problem with them.

Liberals? Don't you mean anyone with a sense of constitutionality? But see how you typed "was" instead of "is"? Marriage is secular now, much like Christmas and Easter.

First of all, religion is defined as an organized body of beliefs and rituals practiced by a group of people. It is known that such a thing only occurred back when humans started to settle in the Neolithic.

Before that you could have worshiping of natural phenomena (that's how many pagan gods came to be, by the way) and idols, but there's evidence of ritualistic burials and union of people. That said religions came after marriage, the only thing I can say is that marriage is definitely a byproduct of ritualism but, again, religions don't hold the monopoly on that

Wut. The scientific community (as in, the community based on empiricism and created after the Renaissance) never accepted such a thing. You could argue that didn't have a rebuttal until Darwin and fellow evolution proposers back in the early XIX century (which, by the way, is almost two centuries, not two decades), but that's not the same thing as accepting.

Also, genetic Adam and Evene have nothing to do with the Biblical Adam and Eve, starting with the fact the genetic ones differ by some good hundreds of thousands of years.

Except Neanderthals were extinct before the Neolithic happened. I keep bringing that age up tied with religion because it was by settling and creating an hierarchy that religion was possible, before that humans were hunter-gatherers and nomads to boot, records so far indicate they didn't have the time to organize their beliefs like the Neolithic humans had. Of course humans and probably Neanderthals sought answers before that age, but they only had beliefs, not religion.

Science is independent of theological belief, so it's not surprising at all that happens.

I think you partially answered that question, friction. A friction of 0.01, albeit small, is still there. I can't tell with certainty the other factors in place of such stop since you don't specify the conditions in place. Is there any other force in the place (wind, vibrations, even accumulated carbon dioxide)? If the place is hotter than the ice, the latter's smoothness will be altered and raises the coefficient of friction, the inclination of the surface can also play a role and the force applied (and even its directionality) can influence how the friction will influence the motion of the cube of ice.

I don't know how is this unanswerable until you give me the specifics that can prove that theoretically it shouldn't happen but happens anyway.

Except it ISN'T designed to live forever for the simple fact DNA replication isn't perfect. Our DNA telomers (the ends of the chain) are always cut in mitosis due to the mechanisms in place for replication only reading a certain sequence to start said replication, so all the bases before that specific sequence are lost forever after mitosis. In smaller words, our DNA shrinks every time cells go under mitosis, to the point vital genes are axed and we die.

There are other factors in place: too much oxidation inside the cells will harm them and the DNA within, along with mutations and fuck-ups by the cellular mechanisms. So mitosis for laymen might seem a key for immortality, but what happens is exactly the opposite.

@ mal

Don't worry about not checking the Hebrew, I always do that before forming my opinion on a specific verse. I agree, there's controversy over the verses and I acknowledge the non-rape-of-angels version as equally valid, it's only my understanding that leads me to agree more with the "rapey" version.

As I quoted above the Second Epistle of Peter, it seems that it was believed in Early Christianity that they wanted to taint the angels, but since that's someone else's opinion on that, I won't back up my understanding with it. There are two keywords here, yada and ra'a. The first is in Genesis 19:5 and means "know". Like you said, it could be interpreted as acquaintance or intimacy depending on who you ask. But there's ra'a, which is in Genesis 19:7. In later versions of the Bible, they translate as:

Ra'a can indeed mean "wicked", but it was more used as "hurt" or "afflict". So, in that sense, the passage can be read as "No, my friends. Don't afflict such a thing." That indicates Lot's townsfolk didn't want just to acknowledge the angels, they wanted something more, justifying why Lot offered his daughters. Again, this is highly debatable and both our interpretations have a good reason to be.

By the way, I said "angels rectums" as a tongue-in-cheek thing, because I agree with you in that the people in Sodom and Gomorrah weren't the depraved homosexuals many seem to think and probably were just pagans that had a special emphasis on sexual rituals.

About the drunken incest, I meant strictly in the context of the Second Epistle of Peter, as I explained above. Of course Lot didn't know what happened nor intended to do so, but the author of the epistles knew and didn't allude to them while separating Lot from the "lawless deeds". You could argue it's the daughters fault, but it bugs me that they aren't mentioned and Lot still is part of it, willing or not.

__________________

ACt

Er, porn industry?

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

Nerox

What an hilarious thread. Glad I tried the "New Posts" button for the first time (It is mighty convenient though).

Also, I like porn.

kael03

I have done all of these things, with kids with autism at that. Veng's description on how children learn things like "hot" is more accurate and viable than your retarded way of doing things.

Mal

Can you find me a specific passage? I don't particularly feel like searching for something I may never find.

kael03

I think veng is referring to the section that says a widow is to have sex with her brother(s)-in-law if her husband dies without leaving her a son in order to get said heir.

stubborn_d0nkey

Are you saying that you want no government involvement, meaning there should be no such thing as being, lets say, "legally" married (that wouldn't mean being married is illegal, I'm talking about the bureaucratic aspect, marriage license and stuff like that), or meaning that there should legally be marriage but the government shouldn't decide who could get married but rather religion should?

If the answer is the latter, then if there were two guys in a religion that allowed same-sex marriage you would be okay with them getting married? Would you be okay with 2 men, 3 women and an elephant getting married if it is by their religion?

Anyways, I thought people tend to get married primarily (in the western world), of course because of love, not so that they could file taxes a certain way nor because of their religious beliefs. I find it intriguing that you did not mention love at all, could you please elaborate on why you didnt? (if it has something to do with your religion please state your religion and elaborate, thanks!)

__________________
I am THE stubborn_d0nkey, thou shalt not have other stubborn donkeys before me.

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER

Quotes for noobs (learn how to break up a quote)

Mal

You're asking him to make sense? Have you read his other posts?

stubborn_d0nkey

I usually don't

__________________
I am THE stubborn_d0nkey, thou shalt not have other stubborn donkeys before me.

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER

Quotes for noobs (learn how to break up a quote)

Human Rasengan

I think that the thought that crosses many peopels mind on the side of opposition is that if Marriage is legalized then a gay couple could go to their church and get married and that would then be viewed as acceptance on the part of their faith.. little do peopel realize a fucking sea captain can marry people so the religious side of the argument against same sex marriage is retarded since not all marriages fall into a religious category. All a marriage is is a legal and economic contract between two people. But based on that Many argue saying if thats the case then why isn't a civil union good enough.

Definitions and understanding of terms is the real problem!

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

Numinous

Incorrect. That's a misinformation popularized by some shows, because sea captains do not have the authority to marry people, only to conduct weddings (the ceremony only, not any legal binding).

If the marriage is to be officiated, there has to be a figure of law present in the vessel (that has to be docked to avoid illegalities). And that docking can allow gay people to marry, since the marriage can and has to follow the laws of the country the vessel is docked in. The kick for gay couples in the US is that the country itself has no defined marriage laws (since it's state-wise marriage laws), so when treating up the papers to carry the marriage back to the US, no matter the state they are in, it has to recognize the marriage since it's a country-to-country affair, not a country-to-state one.

Definitely. Many people still have an archaic understanding of marriage and family values and the worst part is that many of the people who pledge for the "sanctity of marriage" clearly suck at it.

Bristol Palin and Rush Limbaugh come to mind, denouncing gays for destroying marriage and family when the first advocated favorably teen pregnancy and the latter married 4 times. Double standards indeed.

__________________

Human Rasengan

I have a question for both sides..

What about a civil union isn't on equal par with a marriage.( for homosexuals)

and what's so bad about calling the union between two individuals a marriage.. is it simply the fact that it's called a marriage that bothers peopel( for heterosexuals)

I also wonder how an athiest who opposed same sex marriage might view this .. would the furvor be downplayed with the removal of the religious association accompanying many peoples idea of a marriage ceremony.

And finally for Both parties.. would everyone be happy if asll marriages were called and categorized as a civil union and you could call it a marriage if you wanted to in private but for legality all unions between two individuals (Limited to two to prevent further definition altering for adult/child 2 or more / human animal ect arguments) be considered a civil union?

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

kael03

It isn't recognized largely by the entire country (only 8 states have legalized Civil Unions).

Nothing is so bad about calling the union between 2 people a marriage. But "marriage" is a religious connotation and the United States is slowly turning into a theocracy. So, yes, it is simply the fact that it's called a marriage that bothers people.

I, personally, have no knowledge of an anti-gay atheist. Homophobia is largely (and wrongly) influenced by religion, and since atheists do not follow a religion, there is no basis for that hatred.

Honestly, I don't care what it's called. My support of same-sex marriage is it entitles homosexual couples the rights associated with standard heterosexual marriage. Most gays I've spoken to only want these rights (the ability to make decisions on behalf of a partner, joint accounts/insurance, the ability to adopt, etc.). They aren't "out to destroy heterosexual couples".

Human Rasengan

So a civil Union doesn't accomplish those rights.. If not then whats the point of a civil union

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

kael03

In most states, it does not give the same rights as marriage as it isn't legally recognized. There are 8 states, currently, that have legalized civil unions to afford the same rights as a "traditional" marriage.