- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Same sex marriages
Posted on 3/3/25 at 12:45 pm to wackatimesthree
Posted on 3/3/25 at 12:45 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Half the population is walking around with sexual organs that we could call an "innie" and the other half has an "outie." And what do you know, one half also has half of the material needed to reproduce and the other half has the other half.
It doesn't take instructions from IKEA to understand how the parts are supposed to fit together.
Yeah, I used to make jokes about how "Insert Tab A into Slot B" jokes in the 80s/90s was practically foolproof, but that opinion failed to take into account the ingenuity of fools in the 2020s.
0
Posted on 3/3/25 at 12:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Correct, because the Bible is the word of God and doesn't need to be amended.
My point, though, was that, by and large, our laws and rights are derived or protected from a document that is old, written by men, and is debated in terms of what it means. You don't seem to have an issue with it but wince at the mention of the Bible being discussed as relevant for today. It seems like a double standard considering the reasons you offered for why the Bible is inferior to modern secularism in our cultural context today.
I don't understand your confusion.
You admit that the Bible cannot be amended. Frozen in time from the year 300 AD or thereabouts.
The Constitution is the culmination of the wisdom of man up until and beyond 1789. It is a living document that can be amended at any time.
There are multiple Bible versions, denominations, translations, interpretations, with no defined authority.
There is one Constitution. The defined authority is the US court system. And it is open to amendment.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 12:49 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I believe in the concept of original sin, which means that our original representative's disobedience led to sinfulness innate in all his posterity. Therefore, what seems natural for us is not always good.
God created man good, but then he fell into sin. We suffer the consequences of that today, and yet we sin willingly (God isn't forcing us to sin).
I don't care if you are married or not - a man does not get an erection without feeling lust for the female form. So how were people supposed to procreate if lust was not part of our creation?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 12:50 pm to Flats
quote:
It doesn't have to be, because it means whatever 5 people say it means. Abortion was a federally protected right per the Constitution, then it wasn't. No amendment needed.
Because there is a defined authority - the US court system.
What is the defining authority for the Bible?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 12:52 pm to Stinger_1066
quote:
Because there is a defined authority - the US court system.
Great, a literal "appeal to authority". Was the authority correct when it decided Roe or when they struck it down?
Why do you think having an "authority" makes one set of rules more valid than another set? Authorities get it wrong.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 12:56 pm to Flats
quote:
You understand you're invoking subjective feelings, correct? For the 30 year old it may work out very well indeed. Who determines what "work out as well" means?
Which do you think the majority of women would prefer?
1 - be forced as a 12-year-old to go frick a 30-year-old on demand for the remainder of his life while being treated as a servant while he goes out and lives a fulfilling life, sleeping with other women, or
2 - willingly give yourself as a consenting adult to a partner who respects and loves you, and treats you as his equal even though you may have different roles within the relationship.
???
Posted on 3/3/25 at 12:59 pm to Stinger_1066
quote:
Which do you think the majority of women would prefer?
Are you suggesting that we determine morality by asking various sub-groups what they think of a certain arrangement? Why not ask some 30 year old snackbar males what they would think of this? That's as valid as asking the women.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:07 pm to Flats
quote:
Great, a literal "appeal to authority". Was the authority correct when it decided Roe or when they struck it down?
Why do you think having an "authority" makes one set of rules more valid than another set? Authorities get it wrong.
Having a single authority, and appeal mechanism, and an amendment mechanism is a whole lot better than having:
1 - no single authority for interpretation
2 - no mechanism for change
This discussion is laughable. No definitive authority. No agreement between the multitude of adherents. No mechanism for resolving disputes. No mechanism for change. Everyone thinking their interpretation is right and all others are wrong.
I'm out. I have work to get done.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:07 pm to Lake08
Usually Husband/Husband and wife/wife.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:09 pm to Flats
quote:
Are you suggesting that we determine morality by asking various sub-groups what they think of a certain arrangement? Why not ask some 30 year old snackbar males what they would think of this? That's as valid as asking the women.
You finally reveal your true self. I knew it was coming.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:14 pm to Stinger_1066
quote:
The state should have no role in marriages. The state is there to enforce contracts between two or more people. Call them "civil unions".
From a legal standpoint Civil Unions could serve the same purpose and have the same requirements as marriages.
At the same time, that’s really just semantics and no one is going to vote for the state to stop recognizing their marriage.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:47 pm to SOSFAN
Adam was the first Christian. Gen 3 prophesies of Christ and those ancients were saved through their faith in the messiah to come.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:56 pm to Lake08
You don't - they're not married, no matter what the batshit crazies say.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:03 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
From a legal standpoint Civil Unions could serve the same porpoise
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:08 pm to AggieHank86
quote:That's literally just your opinion and has no value in this discussion, based on your own anti-God worldview.
That is one perverted, masochistic deity.
quote:Not what's happening.
Attach electrodes to a hungry animal and then shock it every time it tries to eat.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The first humans were not homosexual.
They were banging their siblings, which is worse than being gay outside of Alabama.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:19 pm to Lake08
quote:
What do you call the other woman?
Twat licker 1 and twat licker 2
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:19 pm to Stinger_1066
quote:I could be misunderstanding you but I'm not confused.
I don't understand your confusion.
quote:Correct-ish. When the writings were written, it was God's word, not when it was acknowledged to be what it was, but sure. I won't nitpick.
You admit that the Bible cannot be amended. Frozen in time from the year 300 AD or thereabouts.
quote:Man's wisdom is not greater than God's wisdom.
The Constitution is the culmination of the wisdom of man up until and beyond 1789. It is a living document that can be amended at any time.
Even so, the Constitution can certainly be changed...for the worse.
Imagine if the US continued its decline into a godless paradise like most of Europe, where free speech is not free, where the right to keep and bear arms is non-existent, and where the right to not be offended trumps the right to religious expression. Now imagine if the Constitution were changed to reflect those values.
Would you say that the "culmination of wisdom of man" is growing, maturing, and even being perfected over time and is being reflected in an amended Constitution? Or, how about you realize that the Constitution was written to codify what the founders thought were objective, inalienable rights that came from an unchanging God?
I don't look around and seeing man's wisdom improving matters these days. I see cultures across 3rd world nations actually devolving as the foundation of biblical principles is rejected for secular humanism and moral relativism.
But let's not deviate too far from why I said what I said about the Constitution: you criticized biblical understanding because it is "based upon words written by a bunch of men 1700+ years ago that are attributed to an imaginary being have been translated into multiple languages, and to where their believers can't even agree on what they actually say or mean." I responded that the secular document of the Constitution is very similar to what you just said in criticism of the Bible. You then pivoted from old, crusty words of men to something else, namely that the Constitution can be amended. That's a different claim of comparison than what you started with, and it still doesn't hold up for the reasons I just gave.
quote:The Bible is the defined authority. The different version and translations do not change what the Bible teaches fundamentally, so those aren't issues. The denominations and interpretations are just highlighting disagreements that Christians have about what the Bible means, not the authority it has. It is the same with the Constitution. The Constitution is the final, defined authority in America, and it is interpreted by all sorts of people in different ways, but especially judges, who have the responsibility to interpret laws in light of the Constitution as well as interpret the Constitution, itself. Instead of denominations, we have political parties, but the result is the same in a lot of ways.
There are multiple Bible versions, denominations, translations, interpretations, with no defined authority.
There is one Constitution. The defined authority is the US court system. And it is open to amendment.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:20 pm to Stinger_1066
quote:Sexual lust is not sinful in and of itself. It's only sinful outside of the context of heterosexual marriage.
I don't care if you are married or not - a man does not get an erection without feeling lust for the female form. So how were people supposed to procreate if lust was not part of our creation?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:21 pm to Rex Feral
Must suck to have deal with the mentally ill as clients.
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News