Gay marriages

[Che1990]

Throughout the world, gay marriages are banned as it is seen 'unnatural' in the eyes of God. Even in Britain where I live, you can't be gay until you are 16. It's time to stop this outright homophobia. I just wanted to hear other peoples opinions on the subject of gay marriages and the gay age of consent now you've heard mine.

[Che1990]

Sorry I meant to post this in politics. Can someone move it please?

[More Fire for the People]

Civil unionship is not a legitamate concept for a government or ruling body to legislate on.

Marriage is a concept of the ruling class to divide the singles vs. coupled and to create lines of inheritance.

[MKS]

I live in the US, in the first state to legalize Civil Unions without being ordered to by the courts. First state to pass legislation. I applaud my state government for doing this as they have allowed a greater freedom to the homosexuals, as well as avodied a lengthy and costly court battle. Simply said: they excercised common sense. Both Repubicans and Democrats agreed to pass the bill and it was signed by our Republican Governor.
There were massive protests from the Christian Right, but no one cared and now they are all back in their homes humping thier bibles.

Marriage is a religous thing, civil unions should be legalized, and the question of marriages should be decided by the individual church and should not be legislated.

Personaly im against all marriage.

[OleMarxco]

Well, the whole marriage deal is a hyped bluff, allright, so I agree on that. Not that I deny people to make a "ceremony" of their coming togheter, but it should reality be no formal bonds or nothing but a loose relationship people can decide to come and go from and say and do as they seem fit. But aslong as there ARE these so-called marriage why should someone of equal sex not be married? Well, I don't see the point in DOING it, and even if it doesn't "create children", they can go right ahead - The same goes for heterosexuals, heheh! :D

[Clarksist]

A lot of Christian Right people think that people won't be gay if they can't have a civil union. However, one could argue it causes more promiscuity, not that I am or anything. The entire argument they pose is based on what THEY want, not what is good for everyone. If they don't want to do it, then fine, but they want to control us all.

And I agree with most people here on the destruction of legal marraige.

P.S. I'm guessing everyone here hates those MAN SYMBOL + WOMAN SYMBOL = MARRIAGE bumper stickers. Damn I hate those.

[Seven Stars]

I am for Homosexual marriage to be legalized. I don't see what the religious right gets so up tight about this, the marriage is not in the Church, so in their view it doesn't count becuase it is not in the eyes of God.

[Matthew The Great]

Marriage is NOT a completely religious thing.

You can get married by a judge. No fuss.

[Che1990]

Yeah you don't have to get married in a church. If you get divorced and remarry you can't marry in a church aswell. But you can marry in a registry office if you're not religious. I'm not sure about marriage. I don't see the point unless you are going to have children. I dunno.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:24 PM
you can't be gay until you are 16.
In Northern Ireland, where im from, you aren't allowed to have heterosexual sex let alone homosexual sex until you're 17, so i don't see what the fuss is about.

[codyvo]

Well, I agree the government should have no legislation over what marriages are right and which are wrong. I too am personally against marriage but I am for others right to get married, although it shouldn't be a matter of law it should be a personal thing. Also I think that homphobia is far to propminent and we should really stand up against it, it is just as bad as any other prejudice, racism, sexism etc.

Most importantly, if you don't support gay marriages, don't marry a gay. That saying actually gives me a good idea, I should marry a gay just to piss off the millions of uptight christians in this country, but I live in the worst state, Florida. We don't have gay marriages, civil unions and we don't let gay couples adopt children. That is just absurd.

[bolshevik butcher]

Gay marrage should eb aloud, homosexuals should have the same rights as hetrosexuals. It's also terrible that homosexual couples cannot addopt childrren.

[Che1990]

In Northern Ireland, where im from, you aren't allowed to have heterosexual sex let alone homosexual sex until you're 17, so i don't see what the fuss is about.

Yeah but you are allowed to go out with people of the opposite sex before you are 17 (or 16 as it is in this country). But you are not even allowed to go out with someone from the same sex until you are 16. It's so homophobic. Yet another example of the ever-growing fascism.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Moving to Learning.

[LSD]

Yeah but you are allowed to go out with people of the opposite sex before you are 17 (or 16 as it is in this country). But you are not even allowed to go out with someone from the same sex until you are 16.

What?!?

Are you still talking about the UK here?

Not only does not such law exist, if it did, it would be entirely unenforceable and effectively moot.

Of course this conversation is moot because, again, no such law exists!


In Northern Ireland, where im from, you aren't allowed to have heterosexual sex let alone homosexual sex until you're 17, so i don't see what the fuss is about.

Yes, Northern Ireland does have a rather ridiculsous age of consent...

Religion, *sigh* ...what can you do? <_<

[patria grande]

The State has the obligation to recognize and protect the rights of people.
Marriage is a right recognized by the State.
Not recognizing the rights of gay people is illegal, is a violation of the Principle of Equality.

[Donnie]

Im for gays doing anything they want. I&#39;m for gay marriage. But then again i against marriage all together. I don&#39;t believe in Man and Women or Man and Man or Woman and Women UNDER god. Also im an athiest so i don&#39;t believe in god lol.

Also i&#39;ve always seen marriage as slavery. I believe people should just sleep with who ever they want. Im for free love.

I don&#39;t see why a female is branded a slut if she sleeps with tones of men? Because if a man sleeps with tones of women he branded a saint? I don&#39;t get it?

Any im in favour of sexual liberation.

Any way why should the state get to decided what gays get to do, or what people do in general. As Proundon said "they neither have the wisdom nor the virtue" (something along those lines) to govern people.

[Dre_Guevara]

Being that I was raised to be a Catholic (not a serious one), I think it&#39;s wrong for homosexual marriage under the Church, but certainly not under the State.

[RedAnarchist]

Why do religious people feel the need to intefere with other people&#39;s lives and lifestyles? Why is it so important to them that others have a chance of going to their &#39;heaven&#39;?

[workersunity]

i have a pretty good post on this at my myspace blog if anyone is interested

[Parkbench]

It&#39;s funny how people support legalizing gay marriage but oppose laws and marriage seperately.

I support gays, and am I bisexual myself--but I see the hypocrisy in "making exceptions" for minorities--what we have to do is take out the base of the system that CAUSES there to be the inequality in the first place. We have to take out marriage, as well.

I wouldn&#39;t want gays to get married becuase they can, I&#39;d want gays JUST AS MUCH as heterosexuals to educate themselves on why marriage is a futile, flawed, and unhappy situation.

But as a fundamental right, yes, they should be allowed, just like we&#39;re allowed to eat ice cream, gays should be allowed to marry in principle--theyre equally innocuous events.

Dre Guevara, how can you maintain any sort of leftist status and still be even thinking about the Church? Even religion doesn&#39;t condemn homosexuality, although it thinks it does.

[Che1990]

I personally don&#39;t belive in marriage either, what&#39;s the point? Just means it vosts a lot when you split up. But while many like to get married I think it&#39;s only fair that gays should be allowed aswell.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:05 PM
Just means it vosts a lot when you split up.
The whole idea is not to split up. If people think that being married will make their relationship stronger (even if that&#39;s not the case), then let them get married.

Oh and yea i think gays should be allowed to get married.

[Heil Hitler]

Fags are disgusting, they shouldn&#39;t be tolerated.

88

[Dre_Guevara]

Dre Guevara, how can you maintain any sort of leftist status and still be even thinking about the Church? Even religion doesn&#39;t condemn homosexuality, although it thinks it does.

Who the hell says you can&#39;t have a faith and be a leftist at the same time???? :huh:

[LSD]

Who the hell says you can&#39;t have a faith and be a leftist at the same time????

Faith is one thing, but sticking to a hierarchical religious organization (the Catholic Church) that is responsible for millions of deaths and countless suffering, is an entirely different thing&#33;

The Catholic Church is one of the most monstrous organization in world history, and even today it continues to spread its corrosive doctrines and promulgate bigotry discrimination and suffering.

[Dre_Guevara]

I told you already that I&#39;m not some serious ardent religious Christian so stop ASSUMING things. And also what millions of death and suffering is the Church responsible for?

[codyvo]

This is not my joke my brothers friend told it to me, I just thought I would share. Seriously though no offense to anyone I didn&#39;t say it and I don&#39;t believe it, it is just funny.

"I&#39;m all for gay rights... as long as they don&#39;t ram it down my throat."

I saw what happened to Latin American, seriously I&#39;m not anti-gay at all, it was just a joke.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:06 PM
This is not my joke my brothers friend told it to me, I just thought I would share. Seriously though no offense to anyone I didn&#39;t say it and I don&#39;t believe it, it is just funny.

"I&#39;m all for gay rights... as long as they don&#39;t ram it down my throat."

I saw what happened to Latin American, seriously I&#39;m not anti-gay at all, it was just a joke.

"I&#39;m all for gay rights... as long as they don&#39;t ram it down my throat."

I saw what happened to Latin American, seriously I&#39;m not anti-gay at all, it was just a joke.

What the fuck was the point of that? :angry:

[codyvo]

Like I said it was just a joke, not meant to offend anyone, sorry if I did, but really their was no point to it.

[Black Dagger]

Jokes are meant to be funny, if a joke clearly isn&#39;t &#39;funny&#39;, please don&#39;t bother telling it. Least of all when said &#39;joke&#39; is offensive, and you know as much.

[Dre_Guevara]

It wasn&#39;t funny to YOU&#33;&#33; So relax there, Black Dagger. I myself found it funny but pointless.

[LSD]

I told you already that I&#39;m not some serious ardent religious Christian so stop ASSUMING things.

So far, you&#39;ve brought up your "not serious" Catholic faith in 3 different threads when it was completely irrelevent to the discussion.

If you want to keep bringing it up, don&#39;t be so shocked when people call you out on it.


And also what millions of death and suffering is the Church responsible for?

Well, depending on how far back we go, there is the obvious stuff, the inquisition, the middle ages, the crusades, etc...

More recently, there is the Church&#39;s policy of supporting dictators, its bloody record in South and Latin America, its condemnation of birth control and contraceptive use. It&#39;s insistance on "traditionl" values, etc..

The Church spreads a doctrine based on bigotry and hatred and that has greatly increased the suffering especially of women and LGBT individuals.

[Che1990]

And the catholic church especially. How can they have catholic and orthodox churches in poor countries (like ones I saw in Romania) full of riches and expensive stuff when there is poverty all around them? The Vatican is a classic example. Catholicism sucks and it is the most homophobic and prejudice of all the christian denominations.

[Black Dagger]

It wasn&#39;t funny to YOU&#33;&#33; So relax there, Black Dagger. I myself found it funny but pointless.

I didn&#39;t find it funny because it was overtly homophobic LOL&#33; I&#39;ll &#39;relax&#39; a little, when homophobia is eradicated.

[Dre_Guevara]

So far, you&#39;ve brought up your "not serious" Catholic faith in 3 different threads when it was completely irrelevent to the discussion.

If you want to keep bringing it up, don&#39;t be so shocked when people call you out on it.

If you see that I&#39;m not a serious Catholic, why the fuck are you picking on me and refering me to the actual teachings of the Catholic Church?


Well, depending on how far back we go, there is the obvious stuff, the inquisition, the middle ages, the crusades, etc...

More recently, there is the Church&#39;s policy of supporting dictators, its bloody record in South and Latin America, its condemnation of birth control and contraceptive use. It&#39;s insistance on "traditionl" values, etc..

When a force tries to instill their ideologies/beliefs upon society, which society does not wholly accept, there will be bloodshed. That&#39;s the nature of instilling principles, whether it is Socialism, Communism, or even Anarchism. Deal with it.


The Church spreads a doctrine based on bigotry and hatred and that has greatly increased the suffering especially of women and LGBT individuals.

Have you read the Bible?


I didn&#39;t find it funny because it was overtly homophobic LOL&#33; I&#39;ll &#39;relax&#39; a little, when homophobia is eradicated.

Well, people criticizing others based on sexual preference, belief, principle, race, background, etc will never be eradicated. I&#39;m sorry but you&#39;re going to have to get used to it.

[Che1990]

Well, people criticizing others based on sexual preference, belief, principle, race, background, etc will never be eradicated. I&#39;m sorry but you&#39;re going to have to get used to it.

Or act.

[LSD]

If you see that I&#39;m not a serious Catholic, why the fuck are you picking on me and refering me to the actual teachings of the Catholic Church?

I don&#39;t know if you&#39;re serious or not. I do know that you keep bringing up your Catholicism out of the blue, so I am, therefore, dubious as to your lack of "seriousness"&#33;


When a force tries to instill their ideologies/beliefs upon society, which society does not wholly accept, there will be bloodshed. That&#39;s the nature of instilling principles, whether it is Socialism, Communism, or even Anarchism. Deal with it.

The Catholic Church wasn&#39;t trying to "instill ideas", it was trying to kill people. The inquisition wasn&#39;t a revolution, it was a mass-murder. There&#39;s a critical difference between killing in the pursuance of an aim, such as war or revolution or civil conflict and killing for the sake of killing, such as the inquisition.

In Spain the Church was already in charge, they weren&#39;t fighting to get contorl, they were control. They were trying to kill / torture anyone who disagreed with them and that is patently wrong.

Furthermore, the Crusades were a straight out war of occupation and colonialism. The Church ordered a wholesale invasion and subsequent genocide to secure its power and maintain its hegemony.

Again, that is injustifiable.


Have you read the Bible?

Yes, 5 times, cover to cover.

Have you?

[Dre_Guevara]

I don&#39;t know if you&#39;re serious or not. I do know that you keep bringing up your Catholicism out of the blue, so I am, therefore, dubious as to your lack of "seriousness"&#33;

Out of the blue? :huh: What are you talking about?


he Catholic Church wasn&#39;t trying to "instill ideas", it was trying to kill people. The inquisition wasn&#39;t a revolution, it was a mass-murder. There&#39;s a critical difference between killing in the pursuance of an aim, such as war or revolution or civil conflict and killing for the sake of killing, such as the inquisition.

In Spain the Church was already in charge, they weren&#39;t fighting to get contorl, they were control. They were trying to kill / torture anyone who disagreed with them and that is patently wrong.

Furthermore, the Crusades were a straight out war of occupation and colonialism. The Church ordered a wholesale invasion and subsequent genocide to secure its power and maintain its hegemony.

Again, that is injustifiable.

Christians/Catholics who kill people do not kill in the name of all Christians/Catholics; just like Atheists who kill people do not kill in the name of all Atheists.


Yes, 5 times, cover to cover.

:lol: I highly doubt that.


Have you?

Not every book but most of the books. I read the Bible almost everyday. And even when I do finish reading every word, I&#39;m not going to stop reading it. I&#39;m going to continue to read and interpret the Bible but certainly not read cover to cover..that&#39;s no way to read a Bible.

[LSD]

I highly doubt that.

I really don&#39;t care, but it&#39;s the truth.


Christians/Catholics who kill people do not kill in the name of all Christians/Catholics; just like Atheists who kill people do not kill in the name of all Atheists.

Yes, but the important difference (and, by the way, no one has ever killed inthe "name of athesim"&#33; :lol:), is that Christianity advocates such actions, whereas Atheims, as a negative conjecture, does not.

Not to pick on Chrisitianity, of course, Judaism and Hinduism and Islam.... are all just at bad. It really isn&#39;t their "fault", it&#39;s just that they&#39;re all thousands of years old and their value systems are dated.


I read the Bible almost everyday. And even when I do finish reading every word, I&#39;m not going to stop reading it. I&#39;m going to continue to read and interpret the Bible

This is why I doubt your protestations that your religious beliefs are not "serious".

[guerillablack]

You guys are a joke, so what the church is responsible for millions of deaths. That&#39;s what happens when there is is war. When the global revolution is moving forward, the vanguard and your precious communism will be responsible for millions of deaths.

What are you going to do with the people who don&#39;t want a communist or socialist economomy, kill them? Your forcing your beliefs on them or killing them.

[codyvo]

I agree, guerillablack, which is why I don not favor global comunism and I do not support a violent revolution.

[slim]

Hopefully a system would be emplaced where it is massively favourable for people to support the system.

[Dre_Guevara]

Yes, but the important difference (and, by the way, no one has ever killed inthe "name of athesim"&#33; laugh.gif), is that Christianity advocates such actions, whereas Atheims, as a negative conjecture, does not.

Didn&#39;t you read about the many murders during the rise of "Communism" in the Soviet Union and other nations with its Atheistic governments? :huh:


Not to pick on Chrisitianity, of course, Judaism and Hinduism and Islam.... are all just at bad. It really isn&#39;t their "fault", it&#39;s just that they&#39;re all thousands of years old and their value systems are dated.

Look at Anarchism for a second. Has it ever been established?? No, because it is utopian. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam have all been instilled for thousands of years and will continue to do so. The religions are not bad; it is the people who interpret their religious beliefs differently and more strictly that make the religions look bad.. Again, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims who kill people DO NOT kill in the name of their religion and people. For someone who claims he read the Bible, (not to mention 5 times) should know better than to say Christianity is "bad". <_< That is why I highly doubt you read the damn book, actually I KNOW you didn&#39;t read it. Or you probably read it with a closed-minded attitude and just read it just for the FUCK of it; just to ridicule it.


This is why I doubt your protestations that your religious beliefs are not "serious".

You say you READ the Bible 5 FUCKING times&#33;&#33;&#33; That&#39;s ridiculous&#33; I suspect you&#39;re some conservative, religious, Christian freak hiding behind a red-and-black Anarchist ski-mask because MAYBE you&#39;re insecure of your true self. :unsure:

[STI]

Have you read the Bible?

Have YOU?

If you have, you&#39;d&#39;ve seen all the barbaric garbage in it. Flip through Deuteronomy or Leviticus.

[Black Dagger]

You guys are a joke, so what the church is responsible for millions of deaths.

Read that over again, who&#39;s the joke? Open your eyes.



That&#39;s what happens when there is is war.

The &#39;church&#39;, religious institutions don&#39;t restrict their terror to just warfare (and how is that an excuse any way?). What about religious terrorism? What about their support for bloody dictators? What about the inquisitions in europe and india? Their rape of Indigenous culture? Missionisation of Africa, the Americas, the pacific, Australia? Their opression of women? Of LGBTTs&#39;? It&#39;s an institution perpetuated by authoritarian hierarchy for fucks sake.



When the global revolution is moving forward, the vanguard and your precious communism will be responsible for millions of deaths.

What &#39;vanguard&#39;? &#39;Will be responsible&#39;, you&#39;ve been to the future have you? Are you a communist or what? You&#39;re sound more and more reactionary every post you make, this is something i would expect from some cappy nut-job. I&#39;ve defended you in the past, but seriously, are you a communist or what? The only people are going to die because of &#39;the revolution&#39; are going to be revolutionaries dying IN DEFENCE of it, and reactionaries trying to destroy it, it&#39;s not just random killing.



What are you going to do with the people who don&#39;t want a communist or socialist economomy, kill them? Your forcing your beliefs on them or killing them.

&#39;The emancipaiton of the working class is the act of the working class&#39;, if the majority of people aren&#39;t out in the streets patricipating there wouldnt be a communist revolution, it&#39;d be some shitty knock-off. But if there was a communist revolution going on, the majority of the population would be communists or people who supported &#39;communist economy&#39;. If people don&#39;t want to participate and enjoy the benefits of a communist society, that&#39;s fucking great. They don&#39;t have to. If they try to restore capitalism, they will be stopped. If they try to undermine the liberty of others, they will be stopped. If they&#39;re just dont want to live here, no one&#39;s forcing them. The only time violence needs to be involved is someone or a group of people are trying to sabotage the revolutionary society or it&#39;s people, that&#39;s self-defence, not murder.

[LSD]

You say you READ the Bible 5 FUCKING times&#33;&#33;&#33; That&#39;s ridiculous&#33;

Know thine enemy.


Didn&#39;t you read about the many murders during the rise of "Communism" in the Soviet Union and other nations with its Atheistic governments?

If you&#39;ve been reading this forum at all you know that the Soviet Union was not Communist, furthermore any intelligent person realizes that the crimes committed by the Soviet Union were not in the name of Atheism, but totalitarianism.

Besides, I return to my original point that there is a difference between death in the pursuance of an ideological goal (which is bad enough) and death as an ideological goal.


The religions are not bad; it is the people who interpret their religious beliefs differently and more strictly that make the religions look bad..

For someone who claims he read the Bible, (not to mention 5 times) should know better than to say Christianity is "bad".

OK, let&#39;s look at some facts.

The Bible condones slavery, racism, prejeduce, sexism, mysogeny, heterosexism, hatred, murder, genocide, monarchy, theocracy, and has absolutely no respect for basic civil rights.

Period.

Now, no matter how you "interpret" it, those are facts. Those are the literal words on the page. You can try to say that Paul was being "metaphorical" when he says that women are forbidden from speaking in church or tha Homosexuals will "not inherit the kindfom of God", or when John tells slaves to obey their masters, but the words on the page are clear.

And I would call them pretty "bad", yes.

Honestly, wouldn&#39;t you? :huh:


That is why I highly doubt you read the damn book, actually I KNOW you didn&#39;t read it. Or you probably read it with a closed-minded attitude and just read it just for the FUCK of it; just to ridicule it.

I read it.

It shouldn&#39;t matter what my mindset was when I read it. If it had contained only positive comendable features, than, regardless of my attitude towards it, I would have had to acknowledge this.

Instead I found blatant bigotry and cruelty. I&#39;m not surprised, it&#39;s over 1800 years old, of course it&#39;s antiquated. But how can you possible claim that it has any relevence to our lives today?

For God&#39;&#39;s sake man, it condones slavery&#33;
It condones racism.
It condones sexism.
It condones heterosexism.
It condones mass-murder.


I suspect you&#39;re some conservative, religious, Christian freak hiding behind a red-and-black Anarchist ski-mask because MAYBE you&#39;re insecure of your true self.

...right... :unsure:

I read the Bible to undersand it and because I think it is wrong to critisize something which you have not read. What I found was precisely what I expected, blatant hatred and prejeduce.

You say that you "read the Bible almost everyday" that "even when [you] do finish reading every word, [you&#39;re] not going to stop reading it".

You call me a Christian conservative in a ski-mask, well I call you a Christian conservative in the open.

You admit your devotion to a work that is one of the most hating and biggoted available.


If you have, you&#39;d&#39;ve seen all the barbaric garbage in it. Flip through Deuteronomy or Leviticus.

or Numbers, or Exodus, or Kings (2 Kings too) or Job or Proverbs or Psalms or Isaiah or even Genesis.

Not to mention Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, especially the Corinthians, Galatians, the Thessalonians, Titus, and everyone&#39;s favority collection of hallucinations, Revelations.

[Dre_Guevara]

Know thine enemy.

:huh:

No, it&#39;s "follow the bandwagon with all the other anti-religious egotists"


If you&#39;ve been reading this forum at all you know that the Soviet Union was not Communist

No shit. Notice I put communist in quotations, smart ass. <_<


furthermore any intelligent person realizes that the crimes committed by the Soviet Union were not in the name of Atheism, but totalitarianism.

The state authority/government had an Atheistic mindset. When they killed Christians or other religious peoples, they did it because they didn&#39;t accept or tolerate religion in their society. I&#39;m not saying that they killed in the name of all Atheists&#33;

SO AGAIN, Christians who kill people or were more strict and authoritarian when indoctrinating their beliefs DOES NOT MEAN they have killed or instilled their beliefs in the name of all Christians&#33;&#33; Get it through your thick head.


OK, let&#39;s look at some facts.

The Bible condones slavery, racism, prejeduce, sexism, mysogeny, heterosexism, hatred, murder, genocide, monarchy, theocracy, and has absolutely no respect for basic civil rights.

Period.

The Bible DOES NOT condone either of the things listed. Your atheist/agnostic and evolutionist buddies have misled you to believing Christianity is based on evil principles and guidelines.

So get your FACTS straight.


Now, no matter how you "interpret" it, those are facts. Those are the literal words on the page. You can try to say that Paul was being "metaphorical" when he says that women are forbidden from speaking in church or tha Homosexuals will "not inherit the kindfom of God", or when John tells slaves to obey their masters, but the words on the page are clear.

And I would call them pretty "bad", yes.

Yeah, women were forbidden to having a position as priest, bishop, cardinal, pope because Jesus Christ appointed all his apostles to males during the Last Supper. So it just carried on with the Church. That DOES NOT however make the Bible sexist. And about homosexuals, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. But the
Bible DOES NOT condone discrimination whatsover.


And I would call them pretty "bad", yes.

Don&#39;t call it "bad" based on what you hear from ANTI-CHRISTIANS or ATHEISTS. You&#39;re being misguided by them; just like how the bourgeouisie misguides the people to believing that Communism is bad.


Honestly, wouldn&#39;t you?

If the Bible teaches one to be a racist, sexist, discriminator, ruthless criticizer, murderer, oppressor, or whatever evil and sadistic characteristic, do you think Christianity would still be the most popular religion in the world today, as matter of fact, do you even think it would still be in existence and preached around the world&#33;?


It shouldn&#39;t matter what my mindset was when I read it. If it had contained only positive comendable features, than, regardless of my attitude towards it, I would have had to acknowledge this.

Instead I found blatant bigotry and cruelty. I&#39;m not surprised, it&#39;s over 1800 years old, of course it&#39;s antiquated. But how can you possible claim that it has any relevence to our lives today?

For God&#39;&#39;s sake man, it condones slavery&#33;
It condones racism.
It condones sexism.
It condones heterosexism.
It condones mass-murder.


or Numbers, or Exodus, or Kings (2 Kings too) or Job or Proverbs or Psalms or Isaiah or even Genesis.

Not to mention Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, especially the Corinthians, Galatians, the Thessalonians, Titus, and everyone&#39;s favority collection of hallucinations, Revelations.

The fact that you say it condones all of the above leads any person (who knows what Christianity is really all about) to believe that you have not read The Bible and/or you have read the horrible interpretations of what the mass majority of Atheists and other haters of Christianity say. They have simply distorted the truth and you have fallen victim to that distortion. It is indeed a shame that this world is filled with a lot of HATE towards religion when they don&#39;t even know JACK SHIT about the TRUTH.


...right... unsure.gif

I read the Bible to undersand it and because I think it is wrong to critisize something which you have not read. What I found was precisely what I expected, blatant hatred and prejeduce.

You say that you "read the Bible almost everyday" that "even when [you] do finish reading every word, [you&#39;re] not going to stop reading it".

You call me a Christian conservative in a ski-mask, well I call you a Christian conservative in the open.

You admit your devotion to a work that is one of the most hating and biggoted available.

Who says I&#39;m devoted to my religion?? I respect my religion for what it is taught in the Bible, not what others THINK the Bible states. I read everyday because it just fascinates me; that doesn&#39;t make me a Christian religious junkie. And I agree it is the most hated work..but that&#39;s amongst you hateful anti-Christian/atheistic INTERPRETERS.

The point is, when a Christian peoples and/or institutions have shed innocent people&#39;s blood, they have acted inconsistent with the principles of Christianity, which is indeed supposed to be a religion of love. The problem in such cases has not been the abandonment of reason for faith, but quite the reverse. When nations or other institutions have resorted to violence in the name of Christ, they have done so because they abandoned faith in what God says in the Bible (e.g., turn the other cheek, love your enemies and do good to them, as much as possible be at peace with all people) and followed their flawed reasoning (I have to do this to them before they do it to me, etc.). That having been said, the history of Christianity is in many ways a much more positive history of peacemaking and love than the question assumes.

I suggest you read "Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry" by Vincent Carroll and David Schiflett.

[Dre_Guevara]

The &#39;church&#39;, religious institutions don&#39;t restrict their terror to just warfare (and how is that an excuse any way?). What about religious terrorism? What about their support for bloody dictators? What about the inquisitions in europe and india? Their rape of Indigenous culture? Missionisation of Africa, the Americas, the pacific, Australia? Their opression of women? Of LGBTTs&#39;? It&#39;s an institution perpetuated by authoritarian hierarchy for fucks sake.

And Black Dagger, I suggest you read what I said to Lysergic Acid Diethylamide about the Christian individuals and institutions who MISLEAD the name of all Christians and the name of Christianity. No offense, but you&#39;re on that bandwagon along with the others who distort the truth about Christianity and The Bible.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 31 2005, 02:56 AM

You guys are a joke, so what the church is responsible for millions of deaths.

Read that over again, who&#39;s the joke? Open your eyes.



That&#39;s what happens when there is is war.

The &#39;church&#39;, religious institutions don&#39;t restrict their terror to just warfare (and how is that an excuse any way?). What about religious terrorism? What about their support for bloody dictators? What about the inquisitions in europe and india? Their rape of Indigenous culture? Missionisation of Africa, the Americas, the pacific, Australia? Their opression of women? Of LGBTTs&#39;? It&#39;s an institution perpetuated by authoritarian hierarchy for fucks sake.



When the global revolution is moving forward, the vanguard and your precious communism will be responsible for millions of deaths.

What &#39;vanguard&#39;? &#39;Will be responsible&#39;, you&#39;ve been to the future have you? Are you a communist or what? You&#39;re sound more and more reactionary every post you make, this is something i would expect from some cappy nut-job. I&#39;ve defended you in the past, but seriously, are you a communist or what? The only people are going to die because of &#39;the revolution&#39; are going to be revolutionaries dying IN DEFENCE of it, and reactionaries trying to destroy it, it&#39;s not just random killing.



What are you going to do with the people who don&#39;t want a communist or socialist economomy, kill them? Your forcing your beliefs on them or killing them.

&#39;The emancipaiton of the working class is the act of the working class&#39;, if the majority of people aren&#39;t out in the streets patricipating there wouldnt be a communist revolution, it&#39;d be some shitty knock-off. But if there was a communist revolution going on, the majority of the population would be communists or people who supported &#39;communist economy&#39;. If people don&#39;t want to participate and enjoy the benefits of a communist society, that&#39;s fucking great. They don&#39;t have to. If they try to restore capitalism, they will be stopped. If they try to undermine the liberty of others, they will be stopped. If they&#39;re just dont want to live here, no one&#39;s forcing them. The only time violence needs to be involved is someone or a group of people are trying to sabotage the revolutionary society or it&#39;s people, that&#39;s self-defence, not murder.
You are putting me into a box, black dagger. I support religion because religion and revolution co-exists. But that&#39;s another story. You are naive to think that if communism is instilled on this earth, that it won&#39;t result in millions of deaths. You said yourself the only ones who will be dead are the revolutionaries and defenders of capitalism. That equates to offenders/defenders which translates to a war. A war will have deaths on both sides. Thus communism will be responsible for millions of deaths.

[LSD]

If the Bible teaches one to be a racist, sexist, discriminator, ruthless criticizer, murderer, oppressor, or whatever evil and sadistic characteristic, do you think Christianity would still be the most popular religion in the world today, as matter of fact, do you even think it would still be in existence and preached around the world&#33;?

Yes.



The Bible DOES NOT condone either of the things listed.

No?

Let&#39;s have a look at the Bible then...

I contended that the Bible condoned slavery, racism, prejudice, sexism, mysogeny, heterosexism, hatred, murder, genocide, monarchy. You denied this. I think, therefore, that it falls to me to support my conjecture with relevent Bibilical passages.

So here goes.


Slavery:

Ex.12:44
But every man&#39;s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.

Ex. 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Ex.21:20-21
If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.

Ex. 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Eph.6:5
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

Col.3:22
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Tit.2:9-10
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Pet.2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Prejudice / Hatred:

Ex. 19:5
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Ex.23:24
Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

Ex. 21:18
For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

Deut. 17:2
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Luke 10:10
But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. Woe unto thee, Chorazin&#33; woe unto thee, Bethsaida&#33; for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

John 15:6
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Acts 19:19
Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

James 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Sexism / Mysogeny:

Ex. 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Lev. 15:19
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

Deut. 21:11
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Deut. 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour&#39;s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Prov. 27:15
A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike.

Prov. 31:3
Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

Prov. 31:10
Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

Luke 2:23
As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;

Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Cor. 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 Cor. 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Eph. 5:22
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Tit. 2:4
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Heterosexism:

Lev. 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev. 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

1 Cor. 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Murder / Genocide:


Ex. 11:5
And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

Ex. 21:17
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Ex. 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man&#39;s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour&#39;s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Lev. 21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Josh. 6:21
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Josh. 8:8
And it shall be, when ye have taken the city, that ye shall set the city on fire: according to the commandment of the LORD shall ye do. See, I have commanded you.

Josh. 10:19
And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD your God hath delivered them into your hand.

Josh. 10:28
And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain : and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jericho.

Judges 3:28
And he said unto them, Follow after me: for the LORD hath delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over.And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valour; and there escaped not a man.

Mark 7:9
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Acts 3:23
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Monarchy.

The entire book of 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Judges.

Not to mention:

Matthew 22:21
Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar&#39;s; and unto God the things that are God&#39;s.


The fact that you say it condones all of the above leads any person (who knows what Christianity is really all about) to believe that you have not read The Bible and/or you have read the horrible interpretations of what the mass majority of Atheists and other haters of Christianity say. They have simply distorted the truth and you have fallen victim to that distortion.

I have just quoted the words of the Bible as translated into English in the King James Bible of 1611. The language is ornate, but the essential features and general accuracy of the translation has never been challanged, and the KJB is currently the most read translation of the Bible in the english speaking world.

...so, who&#39;s distorting what?

I have presented the relevent passages of the Bible that support my claims. You have claimed that the Bible did not support these things I&#39;ve just shown it does. I await your evidence.


So get your FACTS straight.

see above.


And about homosexuals, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. But the Bible DOES NOT condone discrimination whatsover.

I&#39;m not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

Clearly the labeling of one sexual orientation as somehow "unnatural" is, in and of itself, an act of discrimination; one which, it appears, you are supporting. Not to mention the rather obvious fact the Bible not only condemns homosexuality as "unnatural" it also orders the murder of all homosexuals.

If that isn&#39;t discrimination, what is?

[Abstrakt]

...This is getting a little harsh guys. See what religions spews out?

[Dre_Guevara]

Yes.

Umm, no. <_< That made absolutely no sense.


No?

Let&#39;s have a look at the Bible then...

I contended that the Bible condoned slavery, racism, prejudice, sexism, mysogeny, heterosexism, hatred, murder, genocide, monarchy. You denied this. I think, therefore, that it falls to me to support my conjecture with relevent Bibilical passages.

So here goes.


Slavery:

Ex.12:44
But every man&#39;s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.

Ex. 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Ex.21:20-21
If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.

Ex. 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Eph.6:5
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

Col.3:22
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Tit.2:9-10
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Pet.2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Prejudice / Hatred:

Ex. 19:5
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Ex.23:24
Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

Ex. 21:18
For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

Deut. 17:2
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Luke 10:10
But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. Woe unto thee, Chorazin&#33; woe unto thee, Bethsaida&#33; for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

John 15:6
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Acts 19:19
Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

James 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Sexism / Mysogeny:

Ex. 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Lev. 15:19
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

Deut. 21:11
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Deut. 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour&#39;s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Prov. 27:15
A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike.

Prov. 31:3
Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

Prov. 31:10
Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

Luke 2:23
As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;

Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Cor. 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 Cor. 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Eph. 5:22
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Tit. 2:4
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Heterosexism:

Lev. 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev. 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

1 Cor. 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Murder / Genocide:


Ex. 11:5
And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

Ex. 21:17
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Ex. 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man&#39;s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour&#39;s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Lev. 21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Josh. 6:21
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Josh. 8:8
And it shall be, when ye have taken the city, that ye shall set the city on fire: according to the commandment of the LORD shall ye do. See, I have commanded you.

Josh. 10:19
And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD your God hath delivered them into your hand.

Josh. 10:28
And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain : and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jericho.

Judges 3:28
And he said unto them, Follow after me: for the LORD hath delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over.And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valour; and there escaped not a man.

Mark 7:9
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Acts 3:23
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Monarchy.

The entire book of 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Judges.

Not to mention:

Matthew 22:21
Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar&#39;s; and unto God the things that are God&#39;s.

Yeah, looking through anti-Christian and Atheistic sites such EvilBible.com is not going to help you. Pulling out quotes and judging them out of context doesn&#39;t help either. I&#39;m not going to go through the Bible but I am going to offer some sources that I found that talks about those aspects you listed in the Bible.

Does The Bible Condone Slavery? (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html)
Racism in The Bible (http://www.evidence.info/apologetics/racism.html)
Sexism in the Bible (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html)
The Bible and Homosexuality (http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html)

Look through those sources and do some research on your own..stop jumping on the bandwagon with all the other rejects. You have clearly proven to me that you haven&#39;t heard the other side of the spectrum. I suggest you speak with a Christian expert and discuss with him your questions, concerns, and problems. I&#39;m sure he will enlighten you.


I&#39;m not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

Clearly the labeling of one sexual orientation as somehow "unnatural" is, in and of itself, an act of discrimination; one which, it appears, you are supporting. Not to mention the rather obvious fact the Bible not only condemns homosexuality as "unnatural" it also orders the murder of all homosexuals.

If that isn&#39;t discrimination, what is?

Look through the sources. Do some extensive research because you obviously don&#39;t know what Christianity is all about. And do it the research WITH AN OPEN-MIND. I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll find hundreds of more sites that will quickly answer all your questions.

And don&#39;t use www.EvilBible.com and such sites as your sources.

[Dre_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 04:46 PM
...This is getting a little harsh guys. See what religions spews out?
That goes for you too.. I suggest you do some research before judging it based on biased one-sided interpretations.

[LSD]

and don&#39;t use www.EvilBible.com and such sites as your sources.

I&#39;ve never seen that site actually.

My only source is the King James Bible of 1611, but good ad hominem way of dodging the issue.


Yeah, looking through anti-Christian and Atheistic sites such EvilBible.com is not going to help you. Pulling out quotes and judging them out of context doesn&#39;t help either.

If you can "contextualize" the bible&#39;s condemnation of, say, homosexuality, I&#39;d like to see it. As far as I, and the Christian right for that matter (not to mention the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church and every major Christian denomination in the world&#33;&#33;&#33;), can tell, it&#39;s pretty clear in its statement regarding homosexuality.

Again, either address the issues or don&#39;t, but this "context" bullshit is old. The Bible is clear in its sexism, heterosexism, and intolerance. The book is, after all, almost 2000 years old. It reflects the cultural values of the time. Indeed, arguing that somehow it isn&#39;t as memetic as anyother cultural texst is the more ludicrous claim, and if you&#39;re making it, you&#39;ll need to provide some proof.

Now, you say that I&#39;ve taken these passages "out of context". Fine, prove it&#33;


Does The Bible Condone Slavery?

Did you actually read that link?

All that it does is point out that the Bible supported the slavery of the 1st century (because that&#39;s all that existed) and not that of the 17th.

I&#39;m going to quote from it, "So, yes, the Bible does condone slavery. However, the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries."

Wow, that sure proves your case. :rolleyes:


Sexism in the Bible

It&#39;s telling that in order to disprove my claim of sexism in the Bible you quote a sexist source.

"Women are more verbal than men, and when they get together, they tend to flit from subject to subject. In the synagogues, the women were segregated from the men. If they had any questions on the worship or the teachings, they would have had to shout them over to the men, or discuss them among themselves, which would have been disorderly."

Not to mention that it admits sexism in the Bible, it just claims that it was "deferment" to the culture of the time. "This was probably more of a concession to culture than anything else. In first century Israel, women didn&#39;t have many rights or much opportunity for independence, so the husband was a sort of "covering" for her. Since he was legally and morally responsible for pretty much everything his wife did (Numbers 30:6-16), it made sense that she would defer to him in domestic matters" which only reenforces my claim that the bible is a dated work, reflective of the value system in which is was written.

Furthermore, this article attempts to justify women&#39;s oppression by relabeling it in this humorous passage "Besides, submission doesn&#39;t mean becoming a doormat - it means voluntarily laying aside one&#39;s own rights for the sake of the other". :lol:


The Bible and Homosexuality

This site makes valid criticism of the translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9, but fails to really deal with Romans 1:26 and certainly doesn&#39;t deal with Leviticus and Exodus.

Indeed, all it does is point out that there are other more ridiculous laws in Leviticus and that, therefore, we shouldn&#39;t take the condemnation of homsoexuals "all that seriously".

While I would agree that the Bible is full of ludicrous laws and regulations, I don&#39;t think that dminishes the heterosexism of the relevent passages. The simple fact is that those passages, regardless of what other offensive or insane passages exist, are there and have been themselves the cause of great suffering for thousands of years.

This link, like the others, does not prove your case. It does not demonstrate that the Bible is not heterosexist, it just argues that the Bible is guilty of bigger crimes and that we should, therefore, convienently ignore everything in Leviticus. This despite Jesus&#39; specific instructions that Levitician laws (even murderous ones) should be followed.


Look through those sources and do some research on your own..stop jumping on the bandwagon with all the other rejects.

Do some yourself&#33;

Actually pick up the Bible and start reading. You don&#39;t need someone to intepret for you, the words are quite clear. Do you think that the "misinterpretation" that the Bible condemns homosexuals has just become mainstream by accident? Isn&#39;t it far more likely that people can simply read and when they read "thou shall not lie with mankind as with womenkind for it is abomination", they understand what it means?


I suggest you speak with a Christian expert and discuss with him your questions, concerns, and problems. I&#39;m sure he will enlighten you.

Except most of those "experts" wouldn&#39;t disagree with me&#33; (except maybe on slavery, which the Church has moved away from since its public spuport in the late 19th century).

It&#39;s more than likely that this "expert" will condemn homosexuality, approve of traditional roles for women, and believe that all people of other faiths are going to hell.

He will probably support a theocratic government (God&#39;s way) and have no problem with a curtailment of civil rights, if such curtailments are approved in the Bible.

Really, on this one, the experts are on my side.


Look through the sources. Do some extensive research because you obviously don&#39;t know what Christianity is all about. And do it the research WITH AN OPEN-MIND. I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll find hundreds of more sites that will quickly answer all your questions.

Like the links you provided? :lol:

Look, I don&#39;t see how you can reasonably deny that the Bible is an antiquated text, it is very old and so it reflects a very old value system. Claiming anything else flies in the face of history and of the text itself.


Oh, and I&#39;m still waiting on an explanation for this:

And about homosexuals, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[codyvo]

That last one is a very very hateful comment. Whoever said that (Dre Guevara I think) is a bigot. People don&#39;t become gay, they are born that way, many of them battle with the fact that they are gay and hide it for a while, it takes a lot of courage for them to come out because of people like you. Also, let&#39;s just pretend that god did create Adam and Eve. This means he created man, and he gave them penises, shouldn&#39;t they be allowed to do whatever they want with them?

[Dre_Guevara]

That last one is a very very hateful comment. Whoever said that (Dre Guevara I think) is a bigot.

No, I&#39;m just telling it how it is. I don&#39;t hate gay people, but I don&#39;t like them either.


People don&#39;t become gay, they are born that way,

No, that is not true. There is not enough evidence to prove that they are "born that way." A lot of gay men became gay at a very young age..


many of them battle with the fact that they are gay and hide it for a while, it takes a lot of courage for them to come out because of people like you.

They&#39;re pussies if they can&#39;t come out and face reality. I get discriminated all the time, but I&#39;m not going to sulk in my little closet and whine and cry about it. Shit, gay people think they have it worse, they should try living one day in a minority&#39;s shoes and see how the fuck it is.


Also, let&#39;s just pretend that god did create Adam and Eve. This means he created man, and he gave them penises, shouldn&#39;t they be allowed to do whatever they want with them?

They are allowed to do whatever they want. Of course, there are always consequences for everything that you do and for everything that you are. That&#39;s life, man.


Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, I&#39;m done arguing with dogmatic anti-Christians and atheists such as yourself. Again, if this Bible is such an "evil" Bible and promoted such as ideas as racism, slavery, sexism, and the like, then why do people allow it to be practiced??? Your interpretations of the Bible are shitty biased one-sided views. Case closed.

[Parkbench]

Again, if this Bible is such an "evil" Bible and promoted such as ideas as racism, slavery, sexism, and the like, then why do people allow it to be practiced??? Your interpretations of the Bible are shitty biased one-sided views. Case closed.

How can you be frank about this? Your argument is a jumble of isolated facts.

So you ask the incredibly, incredibly naive question of "if it&#39;s so evil, why does it exist?"

Hmm--we&#39;re on an anarchist/communist forum. Aren&#39;t we all ABOUT opposing capitalism, an evil that exists? It IS "so evil" and it dose "exist" and it is "allowed to be practiced." Re-read your statement if you decide to reply--hell, re-read it 5 times for irony, so you realise, if you think hard, your postulation makes no sense outside of an elementary school environment.

The idea that religion is innocuous is wrong. Religion is a mass movement--there is no personal religion. Personal religion is a modern development as an attempt to validate the flawed organised religions. It&#39;s a lot easier to believe bullshit if it&#39;s ambiguous.

Religion is by definition objective: it creates truths. Communism and Anarchism (especially individualist) are philosophically based on the idea that you can not mass produce people or ideas (when people realised this, like I said, they tried to validate their superstitions with personal religion). These are mass movements, and as you are showing by being an anachronistic conservative, you are affected by your &#39;harmless&#39; religion (whether you believe in a white man in sky god or some ambiguous, it&#39;s so vague you cant disprove it god) by "not liking" gay people. How can you even claim to be an intellectul (indirectly, by participating in these debates) and hold these hypocritical views?

Also, people have this whole "born that way" thing messed up. They&#39;re not taking several factors into account:

-a person does not become sexually aroused until their teenage years
-in these years, it may be a very confusing time, and people do try to suppress their true desires and sexuality. here, depending on how theyve developed and what they biologically are attracted to, they may be any number of things.

I am a bisexual.

OH GOD YOUR HOUSE IS GOING TO LIGHT ON FIRE&#33;

Oh, and it&#39;s funny how everyone who ever argues the "theyre just pussies" argument has never studied a lick of psychology in their fucking life. Just wipe away entire fields of thought like that--brilliant&#33;

[LSD]

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, I&#39;m done arguing with dogmatic anti-Christians and atheists such as yourself.

...you can&#39;t prove me wrong, so you give up. How Christian of you&#33; :lol:


Again, if this Bible is such an "evil" Bible and promoted such as ideas as racism, slavery, sexism, and the like, then why do people allow it to be practiced???

What?

Why was human sacrifice permitted?
Why was Naziism permitted?

For most of human history, dominant ideologies were not dominant because they were moral, but because they were popular.

Look at the popularity and influence of radical Whahabism in the middle east. I&#39;m sure that even you would agree that it is a destructive and reactiony force, but that doesn&#39;t stop it from continually spreading.

Religions are like that. Because they are based on "faith" and not reason, the don&#39;t have to make sense to be popular, they just have to appeal to a human desire for "meaning". Christianity does that in spades, it sets out clear "rules" of the universe and "rules" to live by. Those rules happen to be almost 2000 years old, however, and so they are horrible unjust.


Your interpretations of the Bible are shitty biased one-sided views.

And yet "my" interpretations are the same ones made by almost every Christian in the world. Furthermore, the links you provided to refute "my" interpretation, only supported it.

When will you realize that it isn&#39;t "my" interpretation, it&#39;s just the words on the page.


Case closed.

Well, I guess you just can&#39;t face reality.

hmm... I wonder what you would call people like that.


They&#39;re pussies if they can&#39;t come out and face reality.

Oh.


No, I&#39;m just telling it how it is. I don&#39;t hate gay people, but I don&#39;t like them either.

You "don&#39;t like" gay people?&#33;


Shit, gay people think they have it worse, they should try living one day in a minority&#39;s shoes and see how the fuck it is.

Gay people are a minority&#33;

There are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, hence homosexuals are a minority.


They are allowed to do whatever they want. Of course, there are always consequences for everything that you do and for everything that you are. That&#39;s life, man.

...and what are the "consequences" that you are referring to in regards to homosexuality?

"Hell"? :o

[Entrails Konfetti]

We should recognise that marriage doesn&#39;t have to be under a religious affiliation.
The state should provide non-religious institutions for homosexuals to mary.

The church should be seperated from the state,but,at the same time the state shouldn&#39;t force different religions to allow marriage of people they don&#39;t seem fit to marry.But, at the same time the Church should keep their noses out of the marrying non-religious institutions.

The state should allow anyone with mental stability, finacial stability and able to take care of others to adopt,no matter if they are married,single or what-not.

[Dre_Guevara]

Hmm--we&#39;re on an anarchist/communist forum.

No, this is a Leftist forum. Leftists are not all Anarchists or Communists.


Aren&#39;t we all ABOUT opposing capitalism, an evil that exists? It IS "so evil" and it dose "exist" and it is "allowed to be practiced."

Capitalism doesn&#39;t teach people to be evil. People make themselves to possess the "evils" of greed, envy, and lust through capitalism. You cannot compare that to what I am saying.


The idea that religion is innocuous is wrong.

I agree that religion is innocuous; but that&#39;s because people have interpreted their true religion in very strict and almost "cruel" fashion. These interpreters blow everything out of proportion.


Religion is by definition objective: it creates truths. Communism and Anarchism (especially individualist) are philosophically based on the idea that you can not mass produce people or ideas (when people realised this, like I said, they tried to validate their superstitions with personal religion). These are mass movements, and as you are showing by being an anachronistic conservative, you are affected by your &#39;harmless&#39; religion (whether you believe in a white man in sky god or some ambiguous, it&#39;s so vague you cant disprove it god) by "not liking" gay people. How can you even claim to be an intellectul (indirectly, by participating in these debates) and hold these hypocritical views?

All I am saying is that ardent Atheists and Anti-religious people shouldn&#39;t try to belittle religion and shouldn&#39;t try to make them look like they are advocating evil principles and morals. Of course there are religious people and institutions who do put themselves out there and make their religion and the people look bad. But who are you to judge the whole religion and its followers just based on those people and institutions? I don&#39;t follow the old traditions of the Bible..i don&#39;t sacrifice animals and such; so don&#39;t call me a conservative. See, again.. you judge me just because you THINK my religion is evil. That&#39;s how you anti-religious people work -- making ridiculous claims and one-sided judgments. I don&#39;t like gay people, not because the Bible talked about homosexuality, but because I think their sexual habits are filth. And I&#39;m only talking about male homosexuals. Lesbians, I don&#39;t care. Male homos on the otherhand are all degenerates; but they have my pity. I don&#39;t hate them though. Also, just to let you know, the reason why I have a faith is because of the simple fact that I do believe in a Supreme Being and that Evolutionists are all trapped in pit-falls with their ridiculous theories and claims about how we came into existence. I&#39;m a Scientific Creationist.


I am a bisexual.

OH GOD YOUR HOUSE IS GOING TO LIGHT ON FIRE&#33;

I don&#39;t give a shit if you&#39;re a bisexual. In fact I don&#39;t give a fuck if you&#39;re a homosexual. It doesn&#39;t bother me. All you misguided biased Atheistic anti-religious haters have this image that Catholics discriminate against anyone who isn&#39;t STRAIGHT or that religious people in general are homophobes, etc. That&#39;s where you&#39;re all wrong. I respect homosexuals and bisexuals. It&#39;s not like I treat them like they&#39;re dirt; unless they treat me like dirt. I could "befriend" a homosexual/bisexual any day but only on the grounds that he respects my sexuality; if not, I will be the worse of their enemies.


Oh, and it&#39;s funny how everyone who ever argues the "theyre just pussies" argument has never studied a lick of psychology in their fucking life. Just wipe away entire fields of thought like that--brilliant&#33;

You&#39;re missing my point. People who are being discriminated, shouldn&#39;t just whine and ***** all day long. They should TAKE ACTION. Protesting doesn&#39;t do anything to further your ideas. It is the violent revolution that counts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...you can&#39;t prove me wrong, so you give up. How Christian of you&#33;

I&#39;m not going to waste my time with someone who is as dogmatic and closed-minded as you are; not to mention -- UTOPIAN.


What?

Why was human sacrifice permitted?
Why was Naziism permitted?

For most of human history, dominant ideologies were not dominant because they were moral, but because they were popular.

Look at the popularity and influence of radical Whahabism in the middle east. I&#39;m sure that even you would agree that it is a destructive and reactiony force, but that doesn&#39;t stop it from continually spreading.

Religions are like that. Because they are based on "faith" and not reason, the don&#39;t have to make sense to be popular, they just have to appeal to a human desire for "meaning". Christianity does that in spades, it sets out clear "rules" of the universe and "rules" to live by. Those rules happen to be almost 2000 years old, however, and so they are horrible unjust.

Christianity is the most dominant and most popular religion in the world. That means that the majority of world population are part of the Christianity faith. That&#39;s somewhere around 2 billion people ..making up about 33 percent of the population, while the atheists/nonreligious/agnostics only make up 16 percent. 2 Billion people are not "misguided" people and are not people that condone such EVIL principles that you list.


And yet "my" interpretations are the same ones made by almost every Christian in the world.

What the FUCK are you smoking?? Get off that yubba-yubba shit, man. :redstar2000:


Furthermore, the links you provided to refute "my" interpretation, only supported it.

When will you realize that it isn&#39;t "my" interpretation, it&#39;s just the words on the page.

--words on the page that you take out of context and judge everything/everyone just by those phrases. How pathetic is that?


Well, I guess you just can&#39;t face reality.

hmm... I wonder what you would call people like that.

Actually, you&#39;re the one who&#39;s in bumfuck utopia. Sorry, but I think you&#39;re the who needs to be smacked right back to the real world. :che:


You "don&#39;t like" gay people?&#33;

Huh?


Gay people are a minority&#33;

There are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, hence homosexuals are a minority.

I&#39;m talking about ethnicities. Ethnic minorities have it far worse than fucking sexual minorities...


...and what are the "consequences" that you are referring to in regards to homosexuality?

i wasn&#39;t talking about homosexuality. I was just talking about people in general. Everyone has to suffer. That&#39;s what life is about -- Suffering and Prosperity. There is no such thing as perfect principles or perfect human beings.


"Hell"?

I don&#39;t believe in hell.

[LSD]

Christianity is the most dominant and most popular religion in the world. That means that the majority of world population are part of the Christianity faith. That&#39;s somewhere around 2 billion people ..making up about 33 percent of the population

How can Christians be both "33 percent of the population" and "the majority of the world population"?&#33;? :huh:


2 Billion people are not "misguided" people and are not people that condone such EVIL principles that you list.

How many racists were there in 1700?
How many sexists?

Popularity does not dictate correctness, nor does it guarantee morality. You&#39;re right in that every Christian does not hate gay people or believe that women should "stay at home", but that is still what the Bible advocates. And as long as the Bible is held as a "guide" to live by, there will always be a signifiant proportion of the Christian population who actually follows it.

If you don&#39;t think that&#39;s happening, look at the US today. Do you really think that the US would be flirting with banning gay marriage if it weren&#39;t forbidden in the bible?

Sure, there&#39;d be an element of homophobia regardless, but would it be so mainstream if it didn&#39;t have theological support?


What the FUCK are you smoking?? Get off that yubba-yubba shit, man.

Ad Hominem ...again.

You didn&#39;t address my point that nearly every Christian church in the world has intepreted the Bible to mean that homosexuality is a sin. Most of them (including the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, pretty much every Baptist Church, etc...) have also said that it advocates "traditional" roles for women.

Most of them have also said, albeit often quietly, that members of other religions are going to "hell".

Again, their intepretation is generally the same as mine&#33;


--words on the page that you take out of context and judge everything/everyone just by those phrases. How pathetic is that?

Once again, if you want to claim that I&#39;ve taken words "out of context", prove it&#33;

What is the propper context?

You tried to provide links to defend your arguments before, but I easily demonstrated that they in fact supported me.

So... what else you got?


I&#39;m talking about ethnicities. Ethnic minorities have it far worse than fucking sexual minorities...

Not really.

I&#39;d say that in America today, homosexuals are discriminated against as much if not more than ethnic minorities. Of course it depend on where, when, and the circumstances involved. Nothing in life is black and white, but "sexual minorities" are among the most persecutedt.


Huh?

I want you to explain this:

No, I&#39;m just telling it how it is. I don&#39;t hate gay people, but I don&#39;t like them either.

[Dre_Guevara]

How can Christians be both "33 percent of the population" and "the majority of the world population"?&#33;?

Christianity makes up 33 percent
Islam makes up 21 percent
Non-religious makes up 16 percent
Hinduism makes up 14 percent
Primal indigenous makes up 6 percent
Chinese traditional makes up 6 percent
Buddhism makes up 6 percent
Sikhism makes up 0.36 percent
and Judaism makes up 0.22 percent


How many racists were there in 1700?
How many sexists?

Popularity does not dictate correctness, nor does it guarantee morality. You&#39;re right in that every Christian does not hate gay people or believe that women should "stay at home", but that is still what the Bible advocates. And as long as the Bible is held as a "guide" to live by, there will always be a signifiant proportion of the Christian population who actually follows it.

You cannot judge the whole Bible based on a few phrases and passages; so the religion as a whole does not advocate such evil.


Ad Hominem ...again.

You didn&#39;t address my point that nearly every Christian church in the world has intepreted the Bible to mean that homosexuality is a sin. Most of them (including the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, pretty much every Baptist Church, etc...) have also said that it advocates "traditional" roles for women.

Most of them have also said, albeit often quietly, that members of other religions are going to "hell".

Again, their intepretation is generally the same as mine&#33;

No, you think it&#39;s evil. And by the way I am a Catholic, not a Christian.


Once again, if you want to claim that I&#39;ve taken words "out of context", prove it&#33;

What is the propper context?

You tried to provide links to defend your arguments before, but I easily demonstrated that they in fact supported me.

So... what else you got?

They didn&#39;t support you, what are you talking about?? You claim it&#39;s evil. It&#39;s not; far from it...and I&#39;m not going to touch upon every fuckin aspect of the Bible just for someone who is closed-minded and anti-religious..that&#39;s a waste of my time and a waste of yours.

I already told you this: When Christian individuals and institutions have shed innocent people&#39;s blood, they have acted inconsistent with the principles of Christianity, which is indeed supposed to be a religion of love. The problem in such cases has not been the abandonment of reason for faith, but quite the reverse. When nations or other institutions have resorted to violence in the name of Christ, they have done so because they abandoned faith in what God says in the Bible (e.g., turn the other cheek, love your enemies and do good to them, as much as possible be at peace with all people) and followed their flawed reasoning (I have to do this to them before they do it to me, etc.). That having been said, the history of Christianity is in many ways a much more positive history of peacemaking and love than the question assumes.

REad that book I told you about: Christianity on Trial: Arguments against Anti-Religious Bigotry if you&#39;re so desperate of finding the answers.


Not really.

I&#39;d say that in America today, homosexuals are discriminated against as much if not more than ethnic minorities. Of course it depend on where, when, and the circumstances involved. Nothing in life is black and white, but "sexual minorities" are among the most persecutedt.

No. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians go through so much shit; far more than homos....at least homosexuals can hide their fuckin appearance. WE CAN&#39;T&#33;

And stop stating such ridiculous "facts." You think you know everything.

By the way, are you a homosexual?


Not really.

I&#39;d say that in America today, homosexuals are discriminated against as much if not more than ethnic minorities. Of course it depend on where, when, and the circumstances involved. Nothing in life is black and white, but "sexual minorities" are among the most persecutedt.

No. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians go through so much shit; far more than homos....at least homosexuals can hide their fuckin appearance. WE CAN&#39;T&#33;

And stop stating such ridiculous "facts." You think you know everything.

By the way, are you a homosexual? Because it looks like you&#39;re getting sensitive about this.

And to answer your question:

I don&#39;t HATE gay people; meaning I don&#39;t detest them. And I don&#39;t like them LIKE them either; meaning I don&#39;t find them appealing. I think they are filthy-ass people; but that doesn&#39;t mean I won&#39;t respect them. Respecting someone doesn&#39;t necessarily mean you have to like the person as well. I respect them but I don&#39;t like them. :che:

[LSD]

Christianity makes up 33 percent

...right, so Christianity is not not a "majority of the world population" as you claimed.


You cannot judge the whole Bible based on a few phrases and passages; so the religion as a whole does not advocate such evil.

I didn&#39;t say it was "evil", I said that the Bible advocated specific things as demonstrated by the passages I cited.

You have not refuted this.


No, you think it&#39;s evil.

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s "evil". :lol:

I think that it advocates a reactionary oppressive philosophy. Again, you have not refuted this.


They didn&#39;t support you, what are you talking about?? You claim it&#39;s evil.

What&#39;s with you and "evil"?

I said that most Christians would agree with me that the Bible condemns homosexuality and advocates a "traditional" role for women.

But then I&#39;ve said that 3 times, so I&#39;m sure you know that.

Stop dodging the issue&#33;


And by the way I am a Catholic, not a Christian.

:huh:

Catholicism, like Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, is a sect of Christianity.

All Christians are not Catholic. but all Catholics are Christian&#33;


No. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians go through so much shit; far more than homos....at least homosexuals can hide their fuckin appearance. WE CAN&#39;T&#33;

Granted, homosexuals can more easily "pass", but in a way, that only makes it more difficult for them to achieve the rights that others have. That is, it&#39;s harder of a civil rights movement to emerge when so much of the marginalized group is in hiding.


By the way, are you a homosexual?

By the way, are you a homosexual? Because it looks like you&#39;re getting sensitive about this.

No, I am not homosexual, but I am "sensitive" to all instances of biggotry and intolerance.

:angry:

[Dre_Guevara]

Okay, this is getting old and it&#39;s not going to further our debate.

And also about me saying evil a lot:
I think everyone is evil or shows some signs of evil. :P Everyone has a yin and a yang..mine is just a little more amped up.

oh and if Catholics are Christians, then Jews are Catholics. Christianity broke off from the Catholic church to become it&#39;s own religion, much like the Catholics broke off from the Jewish beleif to become it&#39;s own religion.

Catholics and Christians are not the same thing.

[slim]

Ouch,

You have it horribly wrong my friend.

Christianity came from Judaism so did Islam but thats another discussion.

Catholicism is a part of Christianity so is protestantism.

[RedStarOverChina]

LOL Dre Guevara, I learned that when I was a 10 year-old boy in CHINA&#33; And I&#39;m an athiest&#33; How can u believe in something u have absolutely no knowledge about?

[Jazzy]

Love is Love, who are we or the government or the so called religious rights activists to say who should or shouldn&#39;t be allowed to marry.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:05 AM
No, this is a Leftist forum. Leftists are not all Anarchists or Communists.


No, this is Revolutionary Leftist forum. Most revolutionary leftists tend to be Communist/Anarchist, not members of the fuckin&#39; Labour Party.

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:13 AM

How can Christians be both "33 percent of the population" and "the majority of the world population"?&#33;?

Christianity makes up 33 percent
Islam makes up 21 percent
Non-religious makes up 16 percent
Hinduism makes up 14 percent
Primal indigenous makes up 6 percent
Chinese traditional makes up 6 percent
Buddhism makes up 6 percent
Sikhism makes up 0.36 percent
and Judaism makes up 0.22 percent


How many racists were there in 1700?
How many sexists?

Popularity does not dictate correctness, nor does it guarantee morality. You&#39;re right in that every Christian does not hate gay people or believe that women should "stay at home", but that is still what the Bible advocates. And as long as the Bible is held as a "guide" to live by, there will always be a signifiant proportion of the Christian population who actually follows it.

You cannot judge the whole Bible based on a few phrases and passages; so the religion as a whole does not advocate such evil.


Ad Hominem ...again.

You didn&#39;t address my point that nearly every Christian church in the world has intepreted the Bible to mean that homosexuality is a sin. Most of them (including the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, pretty much every Baptist Church, etc...) have also said that it advocates "traditional" roles for women.

Most of them have also said, albeit often quietly, that members of other religions are going to "hell".

Again, their intepretation is generally the same as mine&#33;

No, you think it&#39;s evil. And by the way I am a Catholic, not a Christian.


Once again, if you want to claim that I&#39;ve taken words "out of context", prove it&#33;

What is the propper context?

You tried to provide links to defend your arguments before, but I easily demonstrated that they in fact supported me.

So... what else you got?

They didn&#39;t support you, what are you talking about?? You claim it&#39;s evil. It&#39;s not; far from it...and I&#39;m not going to touch upon every fuckin aspect of the Bible just for someone who is closed-minded and anti-religious..that&#39;s a waste of my time and a waste of yours.

I already told you this: When Christian individuals and institutions have shed innocent people&#39;s blood, they have acted inconsistent with the principles of Christianity, which is indeed supposed to be a religion of love. The problem in such cases has not been the abandonment of reason for faith, but quite the reverse. When nations or other institutions have resorted to violence in the name of Christ, they have done so because they abandoned faith in what God says in the Bible (e.g., turn the other cheek, love your enemies and do good to them, as much as possible be at peace with all people) and followed their flawed reasoning (I have to do this to them before they do it to me, etc.). That having been said, the history of Christianity is in many ways a much more positive history of peacemaking and love than the question assumes.

REad that book I told you about: Christianity on Trial: Arguments against Anti-Religious Bigotry if you&#39;re so desperate of finding the answers.


Not really.

I&#39;d say that in America today, homosexuals are discriminated against as much if not more than ethnic minorities. Of course it depend on where, when, and the circumstances involved. Nothing in life is black and white, but "sexual minorities" are among the most persecutedt.

No. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians go through so much shit; far more than homos....at least homosexuals can hide their fuckin appearance. WE CAN&#39;T&#33;

And stop stating such ridiculous "facts." You think you know everything.

By the way, are you a homosexual?


Not really.

I&#39;d say that in America today, homosexuals are discriminated against as much if not more than ethnic minorities. Of course it depend on where, when, and the circumstances involved. Nothing in life is black and white, but "sexual minorities" are among the most persecutedt.

No. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians go through so much shit; far more than homos....at least homosexuals can hide their fuckin appearance. WE CAN&#39;T&#33;

And stop stating such ridiculous "facts." You think you know everything.

By the way, are you a homosexual? Because it looks like you&#39;re getting sensitive about this.

And to answer your question:

I don&#39;t HATE gay people; meaning I don&#39;t detest them. And I don&#39;t like them LIKE them either; meaning I don&#39;t find them appealing. I think they are filthy-ass people; but that doesn&#39;t mean I won&#39;t respect them. Respecting someone doesn&#39;t necessarily mean you have to like the person as well. I respect them but I don&#39;t like them. :che:
First of all, 33% is not a majority, it&#39;s a plurality.

Second of all, there are black gays, asian gays, and hispanic gays. You seem to be forgetting them.

[bed_of_nails]

No. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians go through so much shit; far more than homos....at least homosexuals can hide their fuckin appearance. WE CAN&#39;T&#33;

So you are saying that people need to hide who and what they are to fit in?

You really strive for change and take pride in yourself. :rolleyes:

Thats really revolutionary behavior.

[codyvo]

Everybody, if divided by religion, then christians are the majority religion of the world, which is what I think he was trying to say.

Dre:
See, if you don&#39;t want to include catholics then that just took away about 25%, so then it would only be about 8% christian. So you can have the majority, if you being so ignorant and include catholics as christians.

[Commie Girl]

WOW...where to start?

"Catholics and Christians are not the same thing"

ALL Catholics are Christian (followers of Christ), do some research on the Reformation, the split in the Church and Protestants (Protest).

Jesus was Jewish, Christianity "sprung" up from the followers of Christ. Sheesh, read a fucking book, man, besides the Bible&#33;

In Canada, we are soon (hopefully) going to pass the Bill allowing same-sex marriage. As a "Christian", you should follow the example of Christ.

[KnowYourEnemy]

The church should not control our right to marriage whatsoever.

http://www.rudypark.com/editorialcartoons/topics/discrimination/gay_000306marriage.gif

[KnowYourEnemy]

It&#39;s all about respect. You may find gay sex or whatever discusting and be all "eww..." about it like little babies, but allowing gays the right to marry isn&#39;t about that, it&#39;s about respecting their views, no matter what you think. The same way in which we all have opinions and express them on here.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Fellas, I&#39;ll end this right now.

There is NO marriage for anyone in communism.

Marriage is a business contract and a religious institution. Both of which will not be part of a communist system.

It is a business contract to establish asset ownership and asset distribution between two individuals. It also establishes parentage of children for inhertiance. All of which is BANNED under communism.

Then don&#39;t forget the religious part. Thus no one is married in communism.

[guerillablack]

Who says we are all communists or even accept your definition of communism or what it should or should not entail.

[apathy maybe]

I had forgotten that this thread was about gay marriage. Can some one please split the thread.

ahhh_money_is_comfort actually knows some theory. &#39;Cept what he said about BANNED is not, really, correct as such. But still the point is, basically, correct.

There is no marriage under communism (or other anarchies), thus no gay marriage.

Anyone who supports the forcing of two people who don&#39;t love each other anymore to stay together is not a communist. If two people can get divorced, if property or inheritance is not an issue then what is the point of marriage?

And if two people can love one another, what is stopping them from living together?

[LSD]

I had forgotten that this thread was about gay marriage.

:lol:


There is no marriage under communism (or other anarchies), thus no gay marriage.

Well, it depends on your definition.

There certainly would be no "legal" marriage, but if two (or three, or four) people decided they wanted to have a little get together and call themselves "married", no one would stop them of course.

I think it goes without saying that with the abolishion of the state, comes the abolishion of state-recognized marriage. "Marriage", when it exists at all will be an entirely personal issue, as it should be.


If two people can get divorced, if property or inheritance is not an issue then what is the point of marriage?

I would imagine, especially in the early post-revolutionary years, that there would still be a "romanticism" regarding marriage. It wouldn&#39;t have any legal or economic significance, but it would probably still be something that people "just do".

As the decades wear on, who can say what will happen. I would imagine that marriage will probably wither away, it will undoubtably change as people realize that monogomy is merely another socialized institution.


And if two people can love one another, what is stopping them from living together?

Amen&#33;

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:56 AM
Who says we are all communists or even accept your definition of communism or what it should or should not entail.
Get with the part line. If your not in it, your part of the problem and must be elimiated.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 2 2005, 04:23 AM
I had forgotten that this thread was about gay marriage. Can some one please split the thread.

ahhh_money_is_comfort actually knows some theory. &#39;Cept what he said about BANNED is not, really, correct as such. But still the point is, basically, correct.

There is no marriage under communism (or other anarchies), thus no gay marriage.

Anyone who supports the forcing of two people who don&#39;t love each other anymore to stay together is not a communist. If two people can get divorced, if property or inheritance is not an issue then what is the point of marriage?

And if two people can love one another, what is stopping them from living together?
There is no purpose to for &#39;living together&#39;. The system will assure the care, education, and feeding of children. Each individual will have thier own living space and personal possesions. There is no need to pool energy and resources to live and raise children. The system assures that such things will be taken care off. There will be no such things as families. This is the fundamental purpose of family units, to raise children by pooling resources. That is not necessary under communism. Everyone rich and poor will reproduce at will, regardless of economics, and all these children will be cared for. Not to worry, with everyone &#39;gravitating&#39; towards prefered work, there will be suplus production of things, and surplus economic activity to care for the extra children. Men will finally be able to behave like men, with no worry about supporting children properly, men will just father as many as children as possible.

Families will no longer exist and understood today. Extended families will not exist as today. Marriage establishes family lines for inheritance and kin cooperation. There is no such thing in communism. The elderly will be cast off, there is no need for grandprents to help raise children. Plus with no lines of inhertance there is no need for &#39;grandparents&#39;, plus such a concept. With the ability to have the system care for children, women will have leave children at day care, then party at night like soriority girls. The children can be left at &#39;night care&#39;.

It&#39;s going to be great. Everyone is just going to shag all day and night, and gravitate towards preferred work.

[LSD]

There is no purpose to for &#39;living together&#39;.

Maybe not, but people will do it anyways.


The elderly will be cast off, there is no need for grandprents to help raise children. Plus with no lines of inhertance there is no need for &#39;grandparents&#39;, plus such a concept. With the ability to have the system care for children, women will have leave children at day care, then party at night like soriority girls. The children can be left at &#39;night care&#39;.

Do you really think that the only reason that people take care of their children or their parents is capitalism?&#33;?

Wow, you&#39;re even more deluded than I thought...

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 3 2005, 03:05 AM

There is no purpose to for &#39;living together&#39;.

Maybe not, but people will do it anyways.


The elderly will be cast off, there is no need for grandprents to help raise children. Plus with no lines of inhertance there is no need for &#39;grandparents&#39;, plus such a concept. With the ability to have the system care for children, women will have leave children at day care, then party at night like soriority girls. The children can be left at &#39;night care&#39;.

Do you really think that the only reason that people take care of their children or their parents is capitalism?&#33;?

Wow, you&#39;re even more deluded than I thought...
And I don&#39;t think you have ever been married.

[LSD]

You&#39;re dodging again&#33;

You didn&#39;t claim that marriage was an economic arrangement (which it largely is), you claimed that the only reason that people take care of their kids / parents or even have family relationships at all ...was capitalism.

:lol:

Yeah, I know, you can&#39;t really defend that, can you... You were just trying to be funny, I think. Oh well, better luck next time.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 3 2005, 03:33 AM
You&#39;re dodging again&#33;

You didn&#39;t claim that marriage was an economic arrangement (which it largely is), you claimed that the only reason that people take care of their kids / parents or even have family relationships at all ...was capitalism.

:lol:

Yeah, I know, you can&#39;t really defend that, can you... You were just trying to be funny, I think. Oh well, better luck next time.
No. That is what you think I said.

What I said is there is no economic pressure to stay together or raise children. That changes everything.

Couples will live together for the &#39;benefit&#39; of living together what ever that is, then when they get tired of living togther, they stop living together. What the heck right? I&#39;m not going to loose anything when I get tired of shacking up.

Plus I&#39;ll spend quality time with my children. The system will take care of the rest. I&#39;ll be too busy &#39;gravitating&#39; towards the work that I need to do. When the kids get old enough, I&#39;ll hook up with the next girl. After the kids are out of diapers, they can take care of themselves just fine.

I&#39;ll still do all the family stuff as long as it is fun. Otherwise there is no need to do more. I&#39;d rather hang out with the hot hot hot chicks at the race track.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 3 2005, 02:52 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 3 2005, 02:52 AM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 3 2005, 03:33 AM
You&#39;re dodging again&#33;

You didn&#39;t claim that marriage was an economic arrangement (which it largely is), you claimed that the only reason that people take care of their kids / parents or even have family relationships at all ...was capitalism.

:lol:

Yeah, I know, you can&#39;t really defend that, can you... You were just trying to be funny, I think. Oh well, better luck next time.
No. That is what you think I said.

What I said is there is no economic pressure to stay together or raise children. That changes everything.

Couples will live together for the &#39;benefit&#39; of living together what ever that is, then when they get tired of living togther, they stop living together. What the heck right? I&#39;m not going to loose anything when I get tired of shacking up.

Plus I&#39;ll spend quality time with my children. The system will take care of the rest. I&#39;ll be too busy &#39;gravitating&#39; towards the work that I need to do. When the kids get old enough, I&#39;ll hook up with the next girl. After the kids are out of diapers, they can take care of themselves just fine.

I&#39;ll still do all the family stuff as long as it is fun. Otherwise there is no need to do more. I&#39;d rather hang out with the hot hot hot chicks at the race track. [/b]
I am guessing someones marriage ended poorly.

[Che1990]

Why has this been moved to opposing ideologies?

[Black Dagger]

Because of Dre Guevaras&#39; rapid homophobia?

[Che1990]

oh ok then

[LSD]

Also, because Dre_Guevara has now been restricted and I think the Admins wanted him to still be able to respond in the thread.

And also because it sort of turned into a debate on Christianity, which should be in OI.

[bed_of_nails]

Dre Guevara, I am going to write a play just for you.

It is going to be called "Romeo and Julio".

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+Jun 3 2005, 03:53 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ Jun 3 2005, 03:53 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:52 AM

Lysergic Acid [email protected] 3 2005, 03:33 AM
You&#39;re dodging again&#33;

You didn&#39;t claim that marriage was an economic arrangement (which it largely is), you claimed that the only reason that people take care of their kids / parents or even have family relationships at all ...was capitalism.

:lol:

Yeah, I know, you can&#39;t really defend that, can you... You were just trying to be funny, I think. Oh well, better luck next time.
No. That is what you think I said.

What I said is there is no economic pressure to stay together or raise children. That changes everything.

Couples will live together for the &#39;benefit&#39; of living together what ever that is, then when they get tired of living togther, they stop living together. What the heck right? I&#39;m not going to loose anything when I get tired of shacking up.

Plus I&#39;ll spend quality time with my children. The system will take care of the rest. I&#39;ll be too busy &#39;gravitating&#39; towards the work that I need to do. When the kids get old enough, I&#39;ll hook up with the next girl. After the kids are out of diapers, they can take care of themselves just fine.

I&#39;ll still do all the family stuff as long as it is fun. Otherwise there is no need to do more. I&#39;d rather hang out with the hot hot hot chicks at the race track.
I am guessing someones marriage ended poorly. [/b]
Your an expert on marriage?

OK

You have my attention. Please educate me with your vast knowledge on marriage.

Why don&#39;t you agree with me? Don&#39;t you agree that millions of years of behavior in humans and pair bonding has been developed for raising children? Because raising children required lots of energy and resources?

Now what happens to male/female relationships when that investment of energy is no longer needed? Can you tell me? One thing I know for sure, it will not be going according to YOUR vision.

[LSD]

Plus I&#39;ll spend quality time with my children. The system will take care of the rest. I&#39;ll be too busy &#39;gravitating&#39; towards the work that I need to do. When the kids get old enough, I&#39;ll hook up with the next girl. After the kids are out of diapers, they can take care of themselves just fine.

I&#39;ll still do all the family stuff as long as it is fun. Otherwise there is no need to do more. I&#39;d rather hang out with the hot hot hot chicks at the race track.

Again, you&#39;re claiming that the only reason that people take care of their children is economic pressures. That&#39;s ludicrous&#33;

By that argument no one who was even moderately wealthy would ever care for their children.

Remember, under communism everyone is socially provided for, but under capitalism the rich have what they want and then some ...and then some more.

Sor if your "theory" were correct, than how come everyone with money to burn isn&#39;t abandoning their children?

Could SOCIAL PRESSURE have anything to do with it?


Don&#39;t you agree that millions of years of behavior in humans and pair bonding has been developed for raising children?

Yes I do.

And do you really think that that will "disappear" simply because people are now able to actually take care of their children propperly? Now that they&#39;re no longer forced to work 20 hours a day to put food on the table?


Now what happens to male/female relationships when that investment of energy is no longer needed?

It changes.

Proabably for the better, proably towards a more equal relationship between men and women, it does not mean that everyone will suddenly start partying all night and abandoning their children.


I&#39;ll still do all the family stuff as long as it is fun. Otherwise there is no need to do more. I&#39;d rather hang out with the hot hot hot chicks at the race track.

Maybe that&#39;s you, but it isn&#39;t everyone else&#33;


Plus I&#39;ll spend quality time with my children. The system will take care of the rest.

But the "system" won&#39;t&#33;

There won&#39;t be "nannies" or "housekeepers", you will have to look after your children on your own. Sure, they&#39;ll probably be daycare, but not 24 / 7.

Actually, if you want to see a system that does follow your model ...it&#39;s capitalism. If you&#39;re rich than you can hire people to take care of your children all the time while you do nothing but party... so if your theory were correct, again, we would expect to see every rich or near rich person abandoning their children.

We don&#39;t.


Couples will live together for the &#39;benefit&#39; of living together what ever that is, then when they get tired of living togther, they stop living together. What the heck right? I&#39;m not going to loose anything when I get tired of shacking up.

Absolutely, the end of capitalism will also mean the end of many loveless marriages and relationships. And the nuclear family will undoubtable change. This "family values" bullshit was always crap anyways.

But, again, none of this proves your, rather ludicrous, idea that without capitalism, people will no longer take care of their children or of the elderly.


What I said is there is no economic pressure to stay together or raise children. That changes everything.

This assumes that people only care for their children because they are "economically pressured" into doing so. That&#39;s a bizzarre and rather sad view of humanity.

Not only is it bizzare, it&#39;s also historically and sociologically inaccurate. Not to mention, biologically. People take care of their children because, as mammals, we are biologically motivated to. Not to mention that, most people want to take care of their kids. They want to spend time with them. Fuck, that&#39;s why most of them have kids.

Sure there&#39;s the exeptional case, but those are exeptional cases.


You have my attention. Please educate me with your vast knowledge on marriage.

This isn&#39;t about marriage.

I already said that marriage would fundmentally change, I think that that is a good think.

You, however, made the outrageous claim that without capitalism people would no longer care for their children or for their parents.

You think that people only care about their children because they are "economically" forced to...

I guess you had a bad childhood. :(

[bed_of_nails]

Now it would seem AMIC has become defensive.

I was merely making an observation upon your behavior. Why dont YOU tell ME how a marriage is supposed to go? :)

[red_orchestra]

Gay marriages= duh, yes&#33; Marriage is the bonding of 2 people...and in some places in the world more than 2.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:06 AM
Now it would seem AMIC has become defensive.

I was merely making an observation upon your behavior. Why dont YOU tell ME how a marriage is supposed to go? :)
My marriage theory will work the same way it works for communism. On paper; and that should be good enough for you if it is good enough for communism. If is a paper theory it is self-proving just like communism.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 4 2005, 05:54 AM


You, however, made the outrageous claim that without capitalism people would no longer care for their children or for their parents.


No.

That is what you think I said.

I said that even before money even existed, male and female co-operated to raise children. Men and women formed pair bonding behavior for the express purpose of raising children to self-sufficiency. This behavior began long BEFORE THE EXISTANCE OF MONEY.

There will be nor purpose for marriage in communism. The need to group resources and energy to raise children will be gone. There is no such thing as marriage in a communist system. I think you need to step up to the plate comrade and shed your capitialist behaviors and influence.

[LSD]

I said that even before money even existed, male and female co-operated to raise children. Men and women formed pair bonding behavior for the express purpose of raising children to self-sufficiency. This behavior began long BEFORE THE EXISTANCE OF MONEY.

Yes.

But usually, it was much more of a community thing. The entire society got together to raise the children. This one man and one woman alone thing is a relatively new invention.

Not as new as capitalism, of course, but still new.


There will be nor purpose for marriage in communism

Purpose? No, but people will proably still do it anyways.


The need to group resources and energy to raise children will be gone.

The "need" is more than economic.

ahhh_money_is_comfort, you made a claim about the raising of children, I refuted it above.

Don&#39;t shy away now, address my points&#33;

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 4 2005, 09:20 AM

I said that even before money even existed, male and female co-operated to raise children. Men and women formed pair bonding behavior for the express purpose of raising children to self-sufficiency. This behavior began long BEFORE THE EXISTANCE OF MONEY.

Yes.

But usually, it was much more of a community thing. The entire society got together to raise the children. This one man and one woman alone thing is a relatively new invention.

Not as new as capitalism, of course, but still new.


There will be nor purpose for marriage in communism

Purpose? No, but people will proably still do it anyways.


The need to group resources and energy to raise children will be gone.

The "need" is more than economic.

ahhh_money_is_comfort, you made a claim about the raising of children, I refuted it above.

Don&#39;t shy away now, address my points&#33;
No.

I don&#39;t have to do what you tell me. You don&#39;t control my labor, so buzz off. You need to change that attitude comrade. The idea that people owe you thier efforts.

Who said it was a &#39;community thing&#39;? What do you mean by that? &#39;community thing&#39; is a term that I am not familiar with from any behaviorlist or anthropologist.

Who said raising children as a man and woman is &#39;reltatively new&#39;?

The non-economic needs will be met with &#39;quality&#39; time.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:06 AM
Now it would seem AMIC has become defensive.

I was merely making an observation upon your behavior. Why dont YOU tell ME how a marriage is supposed to go? :)
There is a model for society that exists today that has components of assured child care. So that child care is done in a community effort. Do you what to know what kind of model this is? It is:

HIPPIE COMMUNES

[LSD]

No.

I don&#39;t have to do what you tell me. You don&#39;t control my labor, so buzz off. You need to change that attitude comrade. The idea that people owe you thier efforts.

...is that another way to say "I can&#39;t address your points, so I&#39;m just going to be an annoying ass and hope that no one notices"?

Well, it does seem to be your general strategy on this board, so I&#39;m hardly surprised you&#39;re employing it here.

Look, you made a ridiculous claim, I disproved it. Now you&#39;re refusing to confront the points I made.

Big surprise. :lol:

[red_orchestra]

HIPPIE COMMUNES
----------------------
your point being? what? I missed it. They made sense back in the 60&#39;s-70&#39;s---and to some degree they still make sense.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 4 2005, 04:47 PM

No.

I don&#39;t have to do what you tell me. You don&#39;t control my labor, so buzz off. You need to change that attitude comrade. The idea that people owe you thier efforts.

...is that another way to say "I can&#39;t address your points, so I&#39;m just going to be an annoying ass and hope that no one notices"?

Well, it does seem to be your general strategy on this board, so I&#39;m hardly surprised you&#39;re employing it here.

Look, you made a ridiculous claim, I disproved it. Now you&#39;re refusing to confront the points I made.

Big surprise. :lol:
Hey, look at the post again Jun 4 2005, 04:21 PM. You got your own homework to do if you want me to answer your post. Or can I use my own assumptions as proof like you did?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:49 PM
HIPPIE COMMUNES
----------------------
your point being? what? I missed it. They made sense back in the 60&#39;s-70&#39;s---and to some degree they still make sense.
Oh let me catch you up.

We are talking about male/female relationships. What will they look like under communism. My point being they are going to look like male/female relationships in hippie communes. 1) because this is a model where children are raised by the system and the mother and father don&#39;t rely on thier own pooled energy to raise children. 2) it is close communist model

That is the reality of communism: hippies, hemp, and groovey stuf; not a workers paradise.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 4 2005, 03:25 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 4 2005, 03:25 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 06:06 AM
Now it would seem AMIC has become defensive.

I was merely making an observation upon your behavior. Why dont YOU tell ME how a marriage is supposed to go? :)
There is a model for society that exists today that has components of assured child care. So that child care is done in a community effort. Do you what to know what kind of model this is? It is:

HIPPIE COMMUNES [/b]
Thats how raising a child is supposed to go according to you. How is a good marriage supposed to go?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+Jun 4 2005, 10:45 PM--> (bed_of_nails &#064; Jun 4 2005, 10:45 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:25 PM

[email protected] 4 2005, 06:06 AM
Now it would seem AMIC has become defensive.

I was merely making an observation upon your behavior. Why dont YOU tell ME how a marriage is supposed to go? :)
There is a model for society that exists today that has components of assured child care. So that child care is done in a community effort. Do you what to know what kind of model this is? It is:

HIPPIE COMMUNES
Thats how raising a child is supposed to go according to you. How is a good marriage supposed to go? [/b]
I don&#39;t know how it is supposed to go, ask the hippies.

The short answer is they raise thier children communaly. Plus there is the groovey stuff that goes along with sharing if you know what I mean.

Plus the hippies would make good communist leaders. They are all about equality and justice.

Plus what marriage? You need to drop your bougouise notions and adopt communist ideas.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 4 2005, 09:58 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 4 2005, 09:58 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:25 PM

[email protected] 4 2005, 06:06 AM
Now it would seem AMIC has become defensive.

I was merely making an observation upon your behavior. Why dont YOU tell ME how a marriage is supposed to go? :)
There is a model for society that exists today that has components of assured child care. So that child care is done in a community effort. Do you what to know what kind of model this is? It is:

HIPPIE COMMUNES
Thats how raising a child is supposed to go according to you. How is a good marriage supposed to go?
I don&#39;t know how it is supposed to go, ask the hippies.

The short answer is they raise thier children communaly. Plus there is the groovey stuff that goes along with sharing if you know what I mean.

Plus the hippies would make good communist leaders. They are all about equality and justice.

Plus what marriage? You need to drop your bougouise notions and adopt communist ideas. [/b]
I am serious. I am going to have to assume you have no clue what it takes to hold a marriage of any kind together ;).

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+Jun 4 2005, 11:23 PM--> (bed_of_nails @ Jun 4 2005, 11:23 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:25 PM

[email protected] 4 2005, 06:06 AM
Now it would seem AMIC has become defensive.

I was merely making an observation upon your behavior. Why dont YOU tell ME how a marriage is supposed to go? :)
There is a model for society that exists today that has components of assured child care. So that child care is done in a community effort. Do you what to know what kind of model this is? It is:

HIPPIE COMMUNES
Thats how raising a child is supposed to go according to you. How is a good marriage supposed to go?
I don&#39;t know how it is supposed to go, ask the hippies.

The short answer is they raise thier children communaly. Plus there is the groovey stuff that goes along with sharing if you know what I mean.

Plus the hippies would make good communist leaders. They are all about equality and justice.

Plus what marriage? You need to drop your bougouise notions and adopt communist ideas.
I am serious. I am going to have to assume you have no clue what it takes to hold a marriage of any kind together ;). [/b]
And I&#39;m saying those ideas of &#39;holding a marriage together&#39; is moot. It won&#39;t happen anymore in a communist system. The concept of &#39;holding a marraige togther&#39; is bougouise concept like money. Both of which will not exist in communism. So commrade you need to drop your bougouise ideas and stop looking for bougouise answers.

[LSD]

Hey, look at the post again Jun 4 2005, 04:21 PM.

?

I think we may be in different time zones, because I see no post at that date / time.


You got your own homework to do if you want me to answer your post.

Blah, blah, blah,

Defend your claim&#33;


Or can I use my own assumptions as proof like you did?

Oh, that&#39;s clever.

You refuse to actually point out any errors in my points, but then try and claim that they&#39;re all assumptions.

:lol:

Foxy bastard.. :D

Look either defend your claim or don&#39;t, but if you want to critisize my points, critisize my points.


And I&#39;m saying those ideas of &#39;holding a marriage together&#39; is moot. It won&#39;t happen anymore in a communist system. The concept of &#39;holding a marraige togther&#39; is bougouise concept like money.

Here you go again with your baseless assertions.

Once again, marriage predates capitalism.

Besides, everyone here already accepts that marriage will significantly change under communism. I think most of us want it to. The current marriage system is discriminatory and oppressive and should be changed...

...but you went way way way beyond that. You claimed that people would stop caring for their kids and would party all night and leave their kids in daycare all night and spend all their time at the race track getting laid... :rolleyes:

We&#39;re still waiting for you to back that up. :P

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2005, 02:54 AM

Hey, look at the post again Jun 4 2005, 04:21 PM.

?

I think we may be in different time zones, because I see no post at that date / time.


You got your own homework to do if you want me to answer your post.

Blah, blah, blah,

Defend your claim&#33;


Or can I use my own assumptions as proof like you did?

Oh, that&#39;s clever.

You refuse to actually point out any errors in my points, but then try and claim that they&#39;re all assumptions.

:lol:

Foxy bastard.. :D

Look either defend your claim or don&#39;t, but if you want to critisize my points, critisize my points.


And I&#39;m saying those ideas of &#39;holding a marriage together&#39; is moot. It won&#39;t happen anymore in a communist system. The concept of &#39;holding a marraige togther&#39; is bougouise concept like money.

Here you go again with your baseless assertions.

Once again, marriage predates capitalism.

Besides, everyone here already accepts that marriage will significantly change under communism. I think most of us want it to. The current marriage system is discriminatory and oppressive and should be changed...

...but you went way way way beyond that. You claimed that people would stop caring for their kids and would party all night and leave their kids in daycare all night and spend all their time at the race track getting laid... :rolleyes:

We&#39;re still waiting for you to back that up. :P
Baseless? They are just as concrete as anything Marx wrote about human behavior.

Marx never did any behavioral studies, yet he wrote was &#39;human behavior fact&#39;?

Marx never did any tracking of factory production techniques with his ideas, yet he was a factory production true-ism?

Marx never did any tracking of economic index to see if his economic system was viable, yet he is economic &#39;truth&#39;?

My proof and models are just as solid as Marx.

[Redmau5]

Baseless? They are just as concrete as anything Marx wrote about human behavior

They are baseless. You tried to claim marriage was a bourgeois concept, and LSD clearly stated that marriage predates capitalism, therefore it is not a bourgeois concept, which means your claim is baseless.

Money also predates capitalism and bourgeois society, which makes everything you said wrong.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 01:00 AM

Baseless? They are just as concrete as anything Marx wrote about human behavior

They are baseless. You tried to claim marriage was a bourgeois concept, and LSD clearly stated that marriage predates capitalism, therefore it is not a bourgeois concept, which means your claim is baseless.

Money also predates capitalism and bourgeois society, which makes everything you said wrong.
Wait a minute. I claimed that marriage EXISTED before money. Marriage existed long before the first coin was ever made. Before you twist my facts to make look bad, why don&#39;t you get my facts correct.

[LSD]

My proof and models are just as solid as Marx.

Aha&#33;

So this whole thing is some "clever" attempt to indicat that in your judgement Marx&#39;s claims were baseless..

Wow, talk about irrelevencies and false associations&#33; :lol:

Sorry, but you made specific claims in this thread. You are now admitting that you have no evidence for these claims. This is not surprising to me, I&#39;ve been pointing that out from the beginning.

The issue of whether or not Marxism is based on evidence is a seperate discussion, maybe you should make a thread on it? But what we&#39;ve learnt here is that you feel Marxism is without evidence and then go on to claim that you have as much evidence as Marx ..meaning, in your oppinion, none.

You just, basically, said that your position has no basis.

It&#39;s about time&#33;


Wait a minute. I claimed that marriage EXISTED before money. Marriage existed long before the first coin was ever made. Before you twist my facts to make look bad, why don&#39;t you get my facts correct.

Actually, you claimed that marriage was a bourgeois concept:

Plus what marriage? You need to drop your bougouise notions and adopt communist ideas.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:40 PM
And I&#39;m saying those ideas of &#39;holding a marriage together&#39; is moot. It won&#39;t happen anymore in a communist system. The concept of &#39;holding a marraige togther&#39; is bougouise concept like money.
Now, you clearly said the concept of marriage was a bourgeois concept, just like money. Money is not a bourgeois concept, neither is marriage. Both existed before capitalism. Therefore i didn&#39;t twist your words, i just quoted you. Everything you said was wrong.


Plus what marriage? You need to drop your bougouise notions and adopt communist ideas.

Once again, you said that marriage is a bourgeois notion. As it predates bourgeois society, you were wrong. So don&#39;t try and act smart when what you said was clearly baseless.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:40 PM
The concept of &#39;holding a marraige togther&#39; is bougouise concept like money.
contradicts
I claimed that marriage EXISTED before money

How could marriage have existed before money ? According to you, marriage and money are both "bourgeois concepts", which means, by your logic, they would have been conceived roughly around the same time.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Jun 6 2005, 03:53 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Jun 6 2005, 03:53 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 10:40 PM
And I&#39;m saying those ideas of &#39;holding a marriage together&#39; is moot. It won&#39;t happen anymore in a communist system. The concept of &#39;holding a marraige togther&#39; is bougouise concept like money.
Now, you clearly said the concept of marriage was a bourgeois concept, just like money. Money is not a bourgeois concept, neither is marriage. Both existed before capitalism. Therefore i didn&#39;t twist your words, i just quoted you. Everything you said was wrong.


Plus what marriage? You need to drop your bougouise notions and adopt communist ideas.

Once again, you said that marriage is a bourgeois notion. As it predates bourgeois society, you were wrong. So don&#39;t try and act smart when what you said was clearly baseless. [/b]
Money is NOT a bougouise thing? You need to be seriously re-educated comrade. Money is the basis for value exchange. Everthing bougoiuise follows from that.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Jun 6 2005, 04:05 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Jun 6 2005, 04:05 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 10:40 PM
The concept of &#39;holding a marraige togther&#39; is bougouise concept like money.
contradicts
I claimed that marriage EXISTED before money

How could marriage have existed before money ? According to you, marriage and money are both "bourgeois concepts", which means, by your logic, they would have been conceived roughly around the same time. [/b]
Money is bougouise because it is anti-revolutionary. The concept of pooling resources for your own benefit or your group is anti-revolutionary. We can not have this comrade, for the good of the collective this must be re-educated out of the protelariat. Marx was very clear, the religion must be abolised. Check 1 reason to abolish the concept of marriage. Marx was very clear, to each his own. We will all have enough to live. Check 2 to abolish the concpet of marriage. Asset and resource accumulation for yourself and your family is unnecessary.

[LSD]

Money is NOT a bougouise thing?

No.


You need to be seriously re-educated comrade. Money is the basis for value exchange. Everthing bougoiuise follows from that.

Spam.


Money is bougouise because it is anti-revolutionary. The concept of pooling resources for your own benefit or your group is anti-revolutionary. We can not have this comrade, for the good of the collective this must be re-educated out of the protelariat. Marx was very clear, the religion must be abolised. Check 1 reason to abolish the concept of marriage. Marx was very clear, to each his own. We will all have enough to live. Check 2 to abolish the concpet of marriage. Asset and resource accumulation for yourself and your family is unnecessary.

Spam.


...he gets like this when he is unable to defend his positions.

I think he thinks it&#39;s clever&#33; :lol:

[Commie Girl]

:D Another good reason to support equal marriage&#33;

"Pope Benedict has condemned same-sex unions, calling them expressions of "anarchic freedom" that threaten the future of the family.

It is the Pope&#39;s first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election in April.

The Pope also condemned divorce, artificial birth control and trial marriages, saying all of these practices were dangerous for the family.

"Today&#39;s various forms of dissolution of marriage, free unions, trial marriages, as well as the pseudo-matrimonies between people of the same sex are instead expressions of anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man," he said.

The Pope made his comments Monday, while addressing families at Rome&#39;s St. John&#39;s Cathedral.

Gay marriages are already legal in several European countries. "

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/06/pope050606.html)

[C_Rasmussen]

I am personally against marriage in general seeing as its just a way of government and Church to control others. Why should a piece of paper tell you who you love or not. If I had to choose though I would say that I support male/female relationships seeing as thats mainly what it is around here. Its a case of environment before you guys want to start in on me.

[LSD]

If I had to choose though I would say that I support male/female relationships

Well, I can&#39;t "start in on" you because I&#39;m not even sure what you meant.

Are you saying that you personally are attracted to members of the opposite sex, or that you think that there is something better about those types of relationships in general?

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 7 2005, 06:52 PM

If I had to choose though I would say that I support male/female relationships

Well, I can&#39;t "start in on" you because I&#39;m not even sure what you meant.

Are you saying that you personally are attracted to members of the opposite sex, or that you think that there is something better about those types of relationships in general?
Well I am attracted to those of the opposite and in a way like I said its prominent around where I live so I am just used to that way of living. You know what I mean?

[LSD]

...not really.

I understand that you may be more used to heterosexual couples than homosexual ones, most hetersexuals are.

But you don&#39;t have a problem with homosexual relationships ...right?

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 7 2005, 07:13 PM
...not really.

I understand that you may be more used to heterosexual couples than homosexual ones, most hetersexuals are.

But you don&#39;t have a problem with homosexual relationships ...right?
Nah I don&#39;t have a problem as long as they aren&#39;t hurting me I don&#39;t really care. I made my point and it seemed like you understood.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 7 2005, 04:13 PM

Money is NOT a bougouise thing?

No.


You need to be seriously re-educated comrade. Money is the basis for value exchange. Everthing bougoiuise follows from that.

Spam.


Money is bougouise because it is anti-revolutionary. The concept of pooling resources for your own benefit or your group is anti-revolutionary. We can not have this comrade, for the good of the collective this must be re-educated out of the protelariat. Marx was very clear, the religion must be abolised. Check 1 reason to abolish the concept of marriage. Marx was very clear, to each his own. We will all have enough to live. Check 2 to abolish the concpet of marriage. Asset and resource accumulation for yourself and your family is unnecessary.

Spam.


...he gets like this when he is unable to defend his positions.

I think he thinks it&#39;s clever&#33; :lol:
You know I&#39;m right but just won&#39;t admit it. That is dark age thinking. You need to be re-educated and drop your anti-revolutionary ideas on economics and male/female relationships.

With money there is always value exchange and that is bougouise.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 6 2005, 12:28 PM

My proof and models are just as solid as Marx.

Aha&#33;

So this whole thing is some "clever" attempt to indicat that in your judgement Marx&#39;s claims were baseless..

Wow, talk about irrelevencies and false associations&#33; :lol:

Sorry, but you made specific claims in this thread. You are now admitting that you have no evidence for these claims. This is not surprising to me, I&#39;ve been pointing that out from the beginning.

The issue of whether or not Marxism is based on evidence is a seperate discussion, maybe you should make a thread on it? But what we&#39;ve learnt here is that you feel Marxism is without evidence and then go on to claim that you have as much evidence as Marx ..meaning, in your oppinion, none.

You just, basically, said that your position has no basis.

It&#39;s about time&#33;


Wait a minute. I claimed that marriage EXISTED before money. Marriage existed long before the first coin was ever made. Before you twist my facts to make look bad, why don&#39;t you get my facts correct.

Actually, you claimed that marriage was a bourgeois concept:

Plus what marriage? You need to drop your bougouise notions and adopt communist ideas.
Bing bing bing. Don&#39;t you get it? This marriage model is a farce. It is farce because it is based on the same line of logic and thought process as communism. The only proof I have is on paper, just like communism. It is a paper model built on my personal prejudice and no anthroplogic, social, economic, or similiar behaviors. Boy how long did it take you intellecutals to figure that out? Geeeze. Not a bunch of bright ones are you.

[LSD]

Bing bing bing. Don&#39;t you get it?

Wow, you really do think you&#39;re clever, don&#39;t you? :lol:

What&#39;s even sadder is that I made that post a day and a half ago, but you were so busy spamming that you didn&#39;t notice.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 7 2005, 09:40 PM

Bing bing bing. Don&#39;t you get it?

Wow, you really do think you&#39;re clever, don&#39;t you? :lol:

What&#39;s even sadder is that I made that post a day and a half ago, but you were so busy spamming that you didn&#39;t notice.
I got a life. I don&#39;t hover on the internet all day waiting for your posts.

Don&#39;t you agree my model of male female relationships is just as valid as Marx&#39;s model on factory production and global economics?

They are just both paper models and self proving.

[STI]

I got a life. I don&#39;t hover on the internet all day waiting for your posts.

Funny. The top 6 topics all have "ahh_money_is_comfort" as the most recent poster.

So you DO hover on the internet all day, and SPAM while you&#39;re at it.

[LSD]

They are just both paper models and self proving.

Yours wasn&#39;t even a "paper model", it was just assertion.


Don&#39;t you agree my model of male female relationships is just as valid as Marx&#39;s model on factory production and global economics?

Of course not.

You provided absolutely no justification or logical basis for your claims. You just stated them. Marx based his determinations on sociological and historical evidence.

But on this subject, you do realize that we are not fanatical Marxists on this site right? Most of us consider Marx to have been a genius, but none of us think that he was infallible. He made some mistakes and was a product of the times and placed in which he lived. You need to stop replying in every thread by saying that it conflicts with "Marxism".

But none of this has any relevency to the question of Gay Marriage&#33;

For crying out loud, at least try to stick to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the validity of Marxist economic models, fine. But don&#39;t do it in this thread.

[andrew_the_fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:38 PM
Marriage is a concept of the ruling class to divide the singles vs. coupled and to create lines of inheritance.
[QUOTE]

I like that quote. I am not a homosexual but I am very much for gay marriage. Because it is not seen as "correct in the eyes of god" what the fuck ever happened to separation of church and state?&#33; They always play the God card to their advantage.

[romanm]

Maoists support gay marriage.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 01:41 AM

I got a life. I don&#39;t hover on the internet all day waiting for your posts.

Funny. The top 6 topics all have "ahh_money_is_comfort" as the most recent poster.

So you DO hover on the internet all day, and SPAM while you&#39;re at it.
I&#39;m here just before breakfast while getting the morning news. I&#39;m here randomly at lunch. I&#39;m here before dinner getting the evening news and email. Then randomly before sleep.

Is that hovering?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 12 2005, 01:45 AM

They are just both paper models and self proving.

Yours wasn&#39;t even a "paper model", it was just assertion.


Don&#39;t you agree my model of male female relationships is just as valid as Marx&#39;s model on factory production and global economics?

Of course not.

You provided absolutely no justification or logical basis for your claims. You just stated them. Marx based his determinations on sociological and historical evidence.

But on this subject, you do realize that we are not fanatical Marxists on this site right? Most of us consider Marx to have been a genius, but none of us think that he was infallible. He made some mistakes and was a product of the times and placed in which he lived. You need to stop replying in every thread by saying that it conflicts with "Marxism".

But none of this has any relevency to the question of Gay Marriage&#33;

For crying out loud, at least try to stick to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the validity of Marxist economic models, fine. But don&#39;t do it in this thread.
My model is written in text. Just like communism. It is self-proving with logic and reason. Just like communism. Eventough I&#39;m not an expert on marriage and human behavior, my model is sound. Just like Marx who was not a factory worker/manager/economist, his model on factory work/worker management/global economics his model is sound too. I&#39;m a marriage philosopher, like Marx was a economics/human behavior philosopher.

[LSD]

Stop spamming this thread in your pitiful attempt to "show up" marxism.

If you want to discuss what you see as flaws in Marxism, start a thread. But it has nothing to do with gay marriage&#33;

[cubist]

if gay marriages are allowed, then gay sex outside of marriage wouldn&#39;t be a sin, then they wouldn&#39;t be sinners, then it would be ok,

unless of course your a conformist conservative chiristian like GW bush

[NykylaiHellray]

DAMN I am sorry to say that this thread is getting beyond pointless and it should be closed now, and sent to post hell.


Dre_Guevara, u may hate to admit this, but u are a right winger pretending to fit in with the left wing. YOU ARE SERIOUSLY CONFUSED MAN&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Now I am personally against relgion as I think it personally encorages pointless hate, though do support it if they agree to not intefere with each other.

I myself am bisexual, and i know full well how nice "christians" are. I think that gay marriages should be allowed, and do not think marriage should be extinquished. It shoukd remain an option for people, for all people.

...............why does this post i am making sound a tad left wing........................

I am going to sit in a corner now as I reassure myself that I am right wing, while at the same time bashing my head in the wall, as a person i know (u know who you are) laughs whole heartadly in my face.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:24 PM
if gay marriages are allowed, then gay sex outside of marriage wouldn&#39;t be a sin, then they wouldn&#39;t be sinners, then it would be ok,

unless of course your a conformist conservative chiristian like GW bush
All those concepts in your post are bougouise. The ideas of male and female. The ideas of marriage. Your post is irrelevant and moot. There is nothing of such and such in communism. Look at hippie communies. That is the model of what male and female relations is to be under communism. Men and women are just going to &#39;groove&#39;.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:38 PM
Civil unionship is not a legitamate concept for a government or ruling body to legislate on.

Marriage is a concept of the ruling class to divide the singles vs. coupled and to create lines of inheritance.
So true.

[Black Dagger]

Look at hippie communies. That is the model of what male and female relations is to be under communism.

What&#39;s a &#39;hippie communies&#39;? And what does it have to do with communism?

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 15 2005, 11:50 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 15 2005, 11:50 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 03:24 PM
if gay marriages are allowed, then gay sex outside of marriage wouldn&#39;t be a sin, then they wouldn&#39;t be sinners, then it would be ok,

unless of course your a conformist conservative chiristian like GW bush
All those concepts in your post are bougouise. The ideas of male and female. The ideas of marriage. Your post is irrelevant and moot. There is nothing of such and such in communism. Look at hippie communies. That is the model of what male and female relations is to be under communism. Men and women are just going to &#39;groove&#39;. [/b]
Well, in a communist society people could call themselves married if they want, there just wouldn&#39;t be a state to marry them. :D

However, here and now, where marriage exists, why shouldn&#39;t gay couples be allowed to get married? C&#39;mon, give me a non-religious reason.

And pray tell, what is "bougouise?"

[RedAnarchist]

He means bourgoise - who are the ruling classes, the fat cats.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 12:34 PM
He means bourgoise - who are the ruling classes, the fat cats.
Yeah I know, the repeated misspellings were just annoying me, so I had to make a snide comment. :D

Should&#39;ve added in a [/sarcasm] there.