The Bible; The Unabridged-Version

[Mare Tranquillity]

Her materials are not available on-line. No surprise that I did not read it.
I have a standing policy to watch no video whether I agree with it or not. I have told many others that they can just post a link or a quote from some text.That would be because I actually post citations that lead to words.

Anything to avoid learning, you want complex issues in sound bites. If it's on the web you can't watch it because it's a video, if it's in text you can't read it because it's not on the web--why do you suppose that people write books with footnotes and thousands of sources? One of the differences between us is that I buy and read books, I own most of the books that I cite as sources, AND I'VE READ THEM TOO.

I have no doubt that is the way it feels to you. I hope that changes for you some day.

How patronizing of you, so you DON'T bowl either?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

We won't know how important those laws are unless we discuss them. You are free to post the most significant ones or perhaps I will choose to start a thread and post the silliest ones. Maybe not, I just don't care that much. I have bigger and more important battles that if won will gain rights for gays in the process anyway.

Legal rights for married heterosexual couples are silly--some of them anyway. Okay, if that's what you think.

So first you don't want anybody to have rights in the law for marriage, then you say--without any shred of proof--that some of those laws are silly, and then you say you have "bigger and better battles". I'm guessing that you are looking for a way to bail out and save face. Go for it. You have provided a perfect example of what many people find contemptible in Christians: hypocrisy, dishonesty, and an amazing ability to ignore the teachings of your own religion.

 

[Dr.Who]

Legal rights for married heterosexual couples are silly--some of them anyway. Okay, if that's what you think.

So first you don't want anybody to have rights in the law for marriage, then you say--without any shred of proof--that some of those laws are silly, and then you say you have "bigger and better battles". I'm guessing that you are looking for a way to bail out and save face. Go for it. You have provided a perfect example of what many people find contemptible in Christians: hypocrisy, dishonesty, and an amazing ability to ignore the teachings of your own religion.

Ok, I will.

 

[Dr.Who]

Ok, I will.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8387

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8387

Thank you, now that I see the point you are making I have to say that it's irrelevant to the discussion. However true it may be that the government SHOULD NOT be in the marriage business, the ugly fact is that they ARE IN the marriage business and as long as they are the laws should be applied equally. Changing the whole course of government intervention is beyond the scope of the gay rights issue to which I am addressing myself in this and other posts.

Maybe you should start a post on cutting the government down to size.

 

[Dr.Who]

Thank you, now that I see the point you are making I have to say that it's irrelevant to the discussion. However true it may be that the government SHOULD NOT be in the marriage business, the ugly fact is that they ARE IN the marriage business and as long as they are the laws should be applied equally. Changing the whole course of government intervention is beyond the scope of the gay rights issue to which I am addressing myself in this and other posts.

Adding gays to the list of people who can legally get married does not change the inequities in the system it just changed slightly which groups are included and which are excluded.

Laws should not be applied the same to all they should be applied with the right discernment. "Everyone can drive except the blind." That is not the same but it is the right way to determine who can do what.

Maybe you should start a post on cutting the government down to size.

Most of my posts relate to that one way or another.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Adding gays to the list of people who can legally get married does not change the inequities in the system it just changed slightly which groups are included and which are excluded.

Laws should not be applied the same to all they should be applied with the right discernment. "Everyone can drive except the blind." That is not the same but it is the right way to determine who can do what.
Most of my posts relate to that one way or another.

There are excellent and easily understood reasons why blind people cannot drive, but the reasons for denying gay people equality are obscure, arcane, and based on religious prejudice, as your all-over-the-map arguments demonstrate very clearly.

Your problem with an overbearing government is not my issue, as long as the laws are on the books they should be applied equally to all consenting, TAX PAYING adults.

 

[Dr.Who]

There are excellent and easily understood reasons why blind people cannot drive, but the reasons for denying gay people equality are obscure, arcane, and based on religious prejudice, as your all-over-the-map arguments demonstrate very clearly.

Your problem with an overbearing government is not my issue, as long as the laws are on the books they should be applied equally to all consenting, TAX PAYING adults.

All over the map? You clearly don't understand what I am saying but it is not because I am all over the map.

Blind people don't get drivers licenses because they can't see and gay people don't get marriage licenses because they can't procreate with each other.

We could end the whole debate if we just said that gays could marry but everyone applying for a license had to testify that they were at least theoretically capable of procreation with their partner. The small number of couple who knew with a certainty that they were infertile would not be able to marry in the eyes of the state. (they could still do so in their churches or whatever institution they belonged to) Or is that kind of testimony to get a license too intrusive?

 

[PLC1]

All over the map? You clearly don't understand what I am saying but it is not because I am all over the map.

Blind people don't get drivers licenses because they can't see and gay people don't get marriage licenses because they can't procreate with each other.

We could end the whole debate if we just said that gays could marry but everyone applying for a license had to testify that they were at least theoretically capable of procreation with their partner. The small number of couple who knew with a certainty that they were infertile would not be able to marry in the eyes of the state. (they could still do so in their churches or whatever institution they belonged to) Or is that kind of testimony to get a license too intrusive?

You're still using that tired old procreation argument?

No one over the age of 60 should be allowed to marry! Let's start a movement to cap the age of consent for marriage, so that only those young enough to procreate can be wed.

Don't you agree?

 

[Dr.Who]

You're still using that tired old procreation argument?

It certainly is getting tired to me as I have consistently been saying the same message for a long time now.

No one over the age of 60 should be allowed to marry! Let's start a movement to cap the age of consent for marriage, so that only those young enough to procreate can be wed.

Motherhood over the age of 60 happens commonly enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50#Age_60_to_64

Enough that a gov can't restrict marriage based on age.

Don't you agree?

France, Italy and the UK (socialist countries) did try to ban women over the age of menopause, from getting fertility treatments, and denied their very right to have children respectively. They were wrong. And they all reversed their policies.

Only the individual should determine how to exercise their civil rights. But the inevitable outcome of socialism is that the gov will intrude more and more onto the rights of the individual.

 

[Aus22]

And the King of England therby started 450 years of religious conflict and warfare in Ireland, which continues, somewhat abated, even today.

Why do people even bother to pretend it has not been tampered with, and modifed, to suit political aims, over the centuries?

Nobody is saying that various editions of the Bible were published for political reasons. However the main text of all the Catholic , Protestant and Orthodox bibles are the same. The only major change is that Protestant left out seven books of the Catholic Old Testament because they were not in the current Jewish Bible.

The Reformation was not started by the King of England but by Martin Luther and John Calvin. Political heads like King Henry 8, queen Elizabeth 1 and King James back these men against the Catholic leaders who were supported by the Kings of France etc. However they did not write the Bible. The original Bible was written in the early centuries and approved by the Catholic Church in the 4th century

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Only the individual should determine how to exercise their civil rights. But the inevitable outcome of socialism is that the gov will intrude more and more onto the rights of the individual.

That's a true statement that you disagree with even though you wrote it. Individuals should only be allowed to determine how to exercise their civil rights AS LONG AS THEY AGREE WITH CHRISTIAN DOGMA, is a much closer statement to what you preach on this site. Does that make you a hypocrite?

Marriage isn't just about procreation, in fact if you look at the ceremony that is used in churches you will find that fecundity is not even mentioned. Nor is it mentioned in the US Law that governs the legal contract of marriage. Yeah, that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

All over the map? You clearly don't understand what I am saying but it is not because I am all over the map.

Blind people don't get drivers licenses because they can't see and gay people don't get marriage licenses because they can't procreate with each other.

We could end the whole debate if we just said that gays could marry but everyone applying for a license had to testify that they were at least theoretically capable of procreation with their partner. The small number of couple who knew with a certainty that they were infertile would not be able to marry in the eyes of the state. (they could still do so in their churches or whatever institution they belonged to) Or is that kind of testimony to get a license too intrusive?

It's amazing to me how far you will go to prevent a few gay people from marrying. No old people could marry, no man with a vasectomy could remarry and have a wife for his children. Jesus F. Christ! You're vitriolic in your hatred, Who, and all to prevent the US Constitution from being applied equally to all citizens--leave religion completely out of it and marriage is a contract between two people and the government. Penises and vaginas are not mentioned in the law, neither are children. Your suggestion would prevent infertile couples from marrying and adopting children too, and you'd do that to spite the gay couples who do the same thing.

Is this another example of the famous statement by Dr. Who, "Only the individual should determine how to exercise their civil rights."?

 

[LooseChange]

In my opinion Gays and Lesbians have a right to be miserable too so let them get married...

 

[Dr.Who]

That's a true statement that you disagree with even though you wrote it. Individuals should only be allowed to determine how to exercise their civil rights AS LONG AS THEY AGREE WITH CHRISTIAN DOGMA, is a much closer statement to what you preach on this site. Does that make you a hypocrite?

You are mistaken. I happen to agree with myself.

Everyone should be allowed to exercise their civil rights even when it does not agree with Christianity. If an 80 year old woman wants to have fertility treatments she should make the decisions herself (and I know of no conflict with Christianity on this) and if two people of the same gender want to get married they should have whatever ceremony they want to. The state should not get involved to restrict their civil rights.

Marriage isn't just about procreation, in fact if you look at the ceremony that is used in churches you will find that fecundity is not even mentioned. Nor is it mentioned in the US Law that governs the legal contract of marriage. Yeah, that makes you a hypocrite.

Marriage in the church can be whatever the religion people involved think it is about. Marriage that is licensed by the state is done so to protect the rights of children and dependent spouses.