Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 And nobody is happy about it either. If you saw your newspaper this morning (Boston Globe, Herald, Metro, I heard Chicago and LA had the same picture as well) and David Vaughan was on your cover, he'd be a gay-rights activist who was none too happy about the decision. He's also one of my good friends up here at Emerson College. Now, if you opened up your paper today, you saw, in my opinion, one of the MOST IDIOTIC comments EVER made by someone. It's so bad, I just had to put it here: Susan Gallagher said she wasn't pleased with the Legislature's decision. The best way to solve the problem? "Fire the legislators," she said. "We don't have any statesmen," Gallagher said. "John Quincy Adams, John Adams--they knew how to led people down a moral path...This country was formed on godly principles. God is written all over this constitution." "If we recognize gay marriage, there will be more attacks on this country, chemical, biological, terrorist." The fact that people had Bibles thrown at them for being "against Jesus" just made my day too. Someday I'd like people to continue reading to know what else is considered as evil as homosexuality [which, in the context of the Bible, should be read as pedophilia and not homosexuality]: 1. The eating of shellfish 2. Adultery 3. Sex before marriage Well, I'm guilty of 1 and 3. Guess it's hell for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Someday I'd like people to continue reading to know what else is considered as evil as homosexuality [which, in the context of the Bible, should be read as pedophilia and not homosexuality]: 1. The eating of shellfish 2. Adultery 3. Sex before marriage Well, I'm guilty of 1 and 3. Guess it's hell for me. You eat shellfish? HEATHEN! -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tawren 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Someday I'd like people to continue reading to know what else is considered as evil as homosexuality [which, in the context of the Bible, should be read as pedophilia and not homosexuality]: 1. The eating of shellfish 2. Adultery 3. Sex before marriage Well, I'm guilty of 1 and 3. Guess it's hell for me. Didn't Jesus basically re-write the laws of sin so that Levitcus and all the crap in there aren't sins anymore? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Someday I'd like people to continue reading to know what else is considered as evil as homosexuality [which, in the context of the Bible, should be read as pedophilia and not homosexuality]: 1. The eating of shellfish 2. Adultery 3. Sex before marriage Well, I'm guilty of 1 and 3. Guess it's hell for me. Didn't Jesus basically re-write the laws of sin so that Levitcus and all the crap in there aren't sins anymore? Umm, unless I'm mistaken, Jesus wasn't around when any of the Bible was written, so I doubt he could change laws to fit certain parts of the Bible. Honestly, I'm a Christian but I have doubts as to HOW the Bible was compiled. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Nice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Depends on whether or not you're reading Old Testament, King James, or Common Book of Prayer... Considering that supposedly the Old Testament is the "word of God," and that the argument often comes from quotation of the Old Testament, it seems that the Old Testament sins should apply. I'm not an expert on theology, and I won't pretend to be. I go to church on occasion, and often, it's a Catholic one, cause an Episcopal one that isn't evangelical is damn hard to find in Beantown anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Depends on whether or not you're reading Old Testament, King James, or Common Book of Prayer... Considering that supposedly the Old Testament is the "word of God," and that the argument often comes from quotation of the Old Testament, it seems that the Old Testament sins should apply. I'm not an expert on theology, and I won't pretend to be. I go to church on occasion, and often, it's a Catholic one, cause an Episcopal one that isn't evangelical is damn hard to find in Beantown anymore. Well, I'm sure Spider Poet will tell us something soon, but it just seems unlikely to me that ONLY those books were written. The other disciples didn't write anything? And, even the word of God can be misconstrued if the instrument to spread it is imperfect (man). -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Well, I'm sure Spider Poet will tell us something soon, but it just seems unlikely to me that ONLY those books were written. The other disciples didn't write anything? Are you referring to the Gnostic Gospels or the New Testament in general? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Well, I'm sure Spider Poet will tell us something soon, but it just seems unlikely to me that ONLY those books were written. The other disciples didn't write anything? Are you referring to the Gnostic Gospels or the New Testament in general? New Testament. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 For the record, there is a passage in the Bible where Jesus basically says it's OK for people to eat pretty much any animal. This is why Christians, for the most part, don't follow the rules of "kosher" food. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Someday I'd like people to continue reading to know what else is considered as evil as homosexuality [which, in the context of the Bible, should be read as pedophilia and not homosexuality]: 1. The eating of shellfish 2. Adultery 3. Sex before marriage Well, I'm guilty of 1 and 3. Guess it's hell for me. Didn't Jesus basically re-write the laws of sin so that Levitcus and all the crap in there aren't sins anymore? Umm, unless I'm mistaken, Jesus wasn't around when any of the Bible was written, so I doubt he could change laws to fit certain parts of the Bible. Honestly, I'm a Christian but I have doubts as to HOW the Bible was compiled. -=Mike You're right and you're wrong. Portions (perhaps all) of the Old Testament had been written by the time that Jesus was born, as all of the events that cover the Old Testament had occurred at that point. Most definitely, all of the old Hebrew laws (i.e. the Talmud, which Judaism still follows) were in existence - i.e. the shellfish stuff, no eating pork, etc. They had laws against homosexuality in those days, and against things such as adultery, but then again you have to take them with a grain of salt as some of those laws, like adultery for example, were based on concepts such as women = property. Jesus wasn't around for the writing of the New Testament, but those books are supposed to be based upon his teachings, so a lot of his preaching / teaching subrogated a lot of the old Jewish laws. That's part of the reason why some of the Jewish elders (like the Pharisees) hated Jesus and eventually played a part in his death. The New Testament has several negative references to homosexuality (I know Paul is especially hard on it), but some have merely dismissed such things as the work of the Testament drafters. BTW, I'm for gay marriage, but I must admit that I received a bit of dark amusement at this story today, for the simple reason that my evil fucking Con Law professor talks about gay marriage EVERY. FUCKING. CLASS. And in a petty, spiteful way it was amusing to see this story after she had been extolling the virtues of the MD Supreme Court for their decision. But hey.....I suppose that this is a state's rights issue after all. And the state legislature is exercising its rights. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Most of the New Testament was written about 50-70 years after Jesus died. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 The other disciples didn't write anything? It's been a while since I've had a Bible class, but I'm 99.99% sure that only New Testament books were written by the Disciples. The Old Testament had a plethora of authors, including King David, King Solomon, etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Most of the New Testament was written about 50-70 years after Jesus died. Partly right. Most of the New Testament was actually written by Paul, who was alive in Jesus' lifetime but never met him personally. He had a feud with Peter that led to the first big split in the religion. You are thinking about the Gospels, although it would more accurately be about 50-100 years (with John being the most recent, and from a historical perspective probably the least accurate). There are also a large number of writings that were not included in the New Testament for various reasons. The New Testament is a compilation of the most important works in early Christianity. Some stuff just didn't make the cut, but still exists and you can find it if you want. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Wait, Paul was one of the Apostles. How the hell did he NOT meet Jesus? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Paul was originally Saul and was one of the top guys for jailing the early believers. He had an encounter with Jesus on a road and became a believer changing his name to Paul. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Paul was originally Saul and was one of the top guys for jailing the early believers. He had an encounter with Jesus on a road and became a believer changing his name to Paul. He was a Jew from Tarsus, but he worked for the Romans. Also, just to clarify, Jesus was already executed when Paul had his 'vision'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 I'm not sure you're correct. And yes, I'm aware of Paul's past - I'm just not sure about the "Paul never met Jesus" thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Thanks for the theology lesson. Now...what are some people's reactions to the institution of civil unions? HOWEVER...gay marriage licenses will still be issued on May 17th, as the issue won't even make it to the ballot until 2006 at the EARLIEST. Personally, I don't see the issue of allowing gay people to marry. I don't see society crumbling at it's foundation. I mean, the definition of marriage has evolved greatly. Here in MA, it wasn't until the 1930s that women were actually considered "people" in a marriage. They were property of the husband until that point in time. I understand that people are afraid of change, but having both groups reach outlandish levels of intolerance is freaking me out. And I live two blocks down Beacon Street from the State House. Damn noise is driving me NUTS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Damnit, and I was hoping for a gay marriage fight. Instead I get a Jesus lesson. F' you all... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Damnit, and I was hoping for a gay marriage fight. Instead I get a Jesus lesson. F' you all... It all fits into my great plan to divert attention from the real issues... Nah. It's just that whenever the gay marriage debate begins, religion is always a large part of it. I seriously doubt that the amendment will pass again next year. Both sides will probably wind up voting against it. The reasoning behind having only one amendment that bans gay marriage and creates civil unions, instead of separating them into two amendments, is that the Legislature (which I give them credit for), believed that next year, it would be a very real possibility that gay marriage bans would pass, but civil unions would be rejected. Anyways...I don't have an issue with gay marriage. I'm pretty sure the foundation of society won't be reduced to rubble due to gay marriage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 It all fits into my great plan to divert attention from the real issues... ...which are "FAUX NEWS", Mikey Moore, how much Kerry/Bush sucks and fishermen getting raped with fruit. Get your priorities in order, hippie. Well, I've said my bit on gay marriage before and don't feel like going through it again, so I leave you all to your Jesus-talk... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Sounds about right... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2004 Personally, I don't see the issue of allowing gay people to marry. I don't see society crumbling at it's foundation. I mean, the definition of marriage has evolved greatly. Here in MA, it wasn't until the 1930s that women were actually considered "people" in a marriage. They were property of the husband until that point in time. I understand that people are afraid of change, but having both groups reach outlandish levels of intolerance is freaking me out. I don't see why it is either. But the problem is that 2/3 of Americans are against it regardless, and in a democracy you can't simply ignore them, because if you do and it is an issue that people care enough about, you will find yourself out of office the next time an election rolls around, provided they still think the same way. Sometimes opinion will shift. Other times it won't. Most politicians tend not to like taking the gamble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted April 1, 2004 The problem is, well, nobody's friggen' happy. Going back to my original post, you've got people opposing gay marriage who also say that civil unions are pure evil. Then you have pro-gay marriage people who say that civil unions make homosexuals second-class citizens because they can't have a true marriage. It's just gonna be one huge clusterfuck...and nobody is happy with their legislator right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 1, 2004 Well look on the bright side. At least they're not all at work trying to raise your taxes... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spicy McHaggis 0 Report post Posted April 1, 2004 How many times do we each need to state our opinion on gay marriage before the threads stop? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 1, 2004 How many times do we each need to state our opinion on gay marriage before the threads stop? *raises hand urgently* Look, I didn't really post anything of substance to continue the debate. I did my part! *smiles smugly* -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted April 1, 2004 Probably not until the news stops about it...you know, cause it's going to be a pretty big issue coming up. And maybe, just maybe, you'll have to vote on it. From the way it looks, I will be in 2006. Mike--you smarmy bastard! Where's my person to vehemently argue with when I need 'em? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Some Guy 0 Report post Posted April 2, 2004 My opinion on gay marriage: I don't give a shit, I thik the legislators did the right thing in making a comprimise. But, I was at the State House for the 2nd of the Con Cons. I'm interning for a state senator (a Democrat, but you have to do what you have to do to graduate college). It was rather interesting. I saw such enlightend signs as "Homosexuals are possesed by demons" and of course the old faithful "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." As I went down to the 4th floor to grab a Coke I heard a stirring redition of "God Bless America" from the gay marriege proponents. It was like walking into a bizzaro world, where tolerance for other's differences fell back to about 1800 and liberals sang patriotic music. I also recieved many, many, many phone calls. One that sticks out is from a woman named Olive who informed me that "all homosexuals should be in mental hospitals" and that "we have to stop this before we're all queer" as well as the typical "we're treated as second class citezens" pap. I've never talked to so many lesbians in my life. And the ones I saw were definately not of the lipstick variety. There's no particular point to this story but I thought I'd share it with you for lack of anythign better to do with my time right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
