I DO mean that!
I’m actually very surprised by the level of ignorance some posters here are exhibiting, but what’s more surprising is the level of tolerance and humanity others are showing too. Cheers SRK, you’ve come a long way since 2002.
If you’re using the bible as your reference, King David and King Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines, so marriage has clearly already been redefined. Plus, the myths in genesis were derived from more ancient babylonian religions. Marriage as a concept appeared long before there was a “book” called genesis, for example in hammurabi’s code, the first record of written law that we have in ancient history. genesis was later cobbled together from multiple separate accounts, hundreds of years later.
dude you’re the one acting like christians are an oprressed minority. stop playing the victim card. christianity is a multibillion dollar business with control over the media (fox news), the radio (conservative talk show), and politicians (republicans). GTFO with that bullshit
its not my fault that if you quack like a duck, act like a duck, and look like a duck, i label you a duck. saying my arguments are taken from websites is not a valid counter argument. i’m quite familiar with the religion so i don’t really need to google anything to point out the glaring hypocrisy and ignorance of the christian arguments. because enough people world wide have enough common sense to realize these and point these things out elsewhere does not make the arguments invalid, in fact it makes them all the more valid. and anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history knows that the anti gay arguments are word for word, identical to the anti civil rights arguments back then when white people were terrified of blacks marrying their white women. again, don’t need google to tell you that.
oh and of course i’m scared of serpent, he posts anti female rants online. the last person who fit that MO was named elliot rodgers. nope, i don’t want anything to do with that! no thanks. and yeah sure im a total social outcast lol and i overcompensate by mocking fundies online. you’re grasping at straws now. maybe i mock them because they are on the wrong side of history and use bad arguments taken from a bad book??? HMMMMM
When fishjie posts, I always get SO HORD.
Not gay by the way, just very… European.
Those nauseating pictures posted illustrate why there is such widespread dislike for gay males. Besides philosophisizing, science, logic, religion, whatever…everyone besides gay males are immensely disgusted by it. It is an innate instinctual reaction.
Now lesbians on the other hand, we all love them (except gay males). Even straight women are turned on by them. This has an opposite innate instinctual reaction. Instead of being immensely disgusted, we are immensely turned on.
I’m not going into what you believe about the origins of the books of the bible because the point was about terminology not about the origin of marriage and not the origins or legitimacy of the creation story. The concept of marriage could have been longer than the Egyptians and Babylonians, i never stated that the actual ceremony itself was a creation of Christian. Even if you believe that the stories of Genesis were derived from Babylonian religion it doesn’t exclude the fact that the term “marriage” was taken and defined by the church upon translating Kiddushin to French (or Greek, i can’t remember) and Latin. Every culture had their own term for their wedlocks, the Egyptians had their own term as with the Babylonians.
King David and King Solomon had thousands of wives, and mostly everybody in the OT was known to be married to more than 1 wife (some had more than hundreds), except for maybe the prophets from Noah and before. During the time of the OT, or in BC in general, it’s theory that the mentality of ancient civilization was to procreate and increase their race allot, this is why most civilizations either had multiple wives or even married their own cousins. In the bible’s case, marriage was mostly done for domestic/legalization reasons rather than love/holy matrimony as we recognize now. It was not until after Jesus’ instruction’s in where judeo christianity became just 1 man and wife. Laws both civil to natural do change based on the situation of society.
Maybe god should have just created a billion people off the bat instead of a dirtman and his ribwoman.
But naahhh. That would have made too much sense.
BEST GAME EVER
Gotta love how the beginning’s of humanity is just riddled with generations of incest, according to the bible. And historical records…
@Zatalcon answer me this: Were you born with one missing, or one extra chromosome? I really can’t figure it out, and it’s been bothering me ever since I saw you attempt to string together an attempt at a thought, everywhere in this thread.
Is there really a point in arguing how marriage was defined thousands of years ago when language is constantly evolving and changing definitions of words, other than just to win the argument of the origins of the word?
I don’t really give a shit about gay marriage. I think this bill or whatever passing is just another distraction from more important issues like how they can now enter your house without a warrant. It seems like martial law is slowing creeping in without the sheep noticing it.
(I already asked that, Spirit Juice, just last page, and ralph_sab never answered.)
That said, @ralph_sab, I did look up the word “kiddushin” in the past couple of days and while I can see what you’re saying with regards to the origin of word “marriage” in regards to how it’s defined in Christian (and, more importantly, Jewish) religions (and I guess Islam too), I’ve still yet to find anything about “marriage” only being a term that applies to Christian wedlock.
So…yeah, even if I believed what you were saying, I’ve still yet to find actual evidence to back that up. Feel to elucidate more though. I’m not being intentionally obtuse like Zatalcon; I honestly want to know if what you’re saying is true or not even if I obviously disagree with the premise for reasons I’ve already explained (and one of which you’ve yet to answer).
Understandable about the “not lurking” thing.
As for me, I yet live. Nothing has changed for the better, but I didn’t really expect it to, so…yeah. I would like to think you’ve been well.
Raz0r confirmed to have Googled “Men kissing”
You do have a point that in this current generation Marriage is not termed for Christians only anymore. Marriage is a general term for practically any form of wedlock however, it’s pop terminology but not academically correct. For example, Urdo or Nikaḥnamah is their wedlock term and this is simply just Islamic “marriage”, the definition Nikaḥnamah (or Urdo, i can’t recall) is almost the same as Marriage in definition (two people) but this is a term that originated from the religion of Islam and it is tied to the religious beliefs of muslims. Muslims from the Middle East get very aggressive if someone terms their wedlock as “Muslim Marriage” because they think you are stating something sacrilegious by associating their beliefs with Christianity.
It’s the same with issue now with gay “marriage”. My point is, in order to avoid the political and religious wrestling it is best to just create a new terminology for Gay wedlocks. Even if you disagree that the term only belongs to christians now, the point is the term itself originated from Kiddushin.
It’s popularly theorized by theologists that Adam and Eve and the rest of the figures of the OT were possibly more than 1 person. All the figures in the OT were given Hebrew titles instead of actual names. Adam = Man, Eve = Life, Noah = Rest, Moses = Liberator…
I don’t think creating a billion people would be a good idea. If a billion people were made in the beginning then how many people would exist after a century to 500 years after that?
I’m disgusted to see many clueless fools support sodomite marriage at Srk. Moreover, I’m proud to have boycotted USF4 because of the atrocious transvestite poison.
From this point on, I’m going to be versing challengers on head to head cabinets to stray away from you sodomite supporters at Srk.
Now I’m going to go cry in a corner to this abomination news in the sight of the Lord.
Great. Now can I have my multi-wives please?
Considering the major health risks of anal sex, even if using protection (Which, in anal sex, only mitigates the risk), I would hardly call it innocuous.
Even better, how long have condoms been in existence? Even if they were able to 100% able to eliminated the rsisks, would that make it suddenly good?
(So many trolls gathering here. It’s like this thread is a bridge.)
@ralph_sab, I see. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, which is fine with me.
Which kinds gets into the whole point of why I was saying that part of your argument was disingenuous, even before the fact that language changes a lot over time, especially over so much time. For example, I’m not exactly thrilled with the current evolution (and overuse) of the word “epic” as basically “great” or “really good”, but I (reluctantly) accept that’s basically how people use it nowadays; see also: awesome. Pretty much nothing stays “academically correct” for long unless it’s something either so pedantic, so specific, so esoteric or some combination thereof that the majority of the population don’t touch for one reason or another.
“Marriage” clearly is not that type of word and arguably never has been.
That’s perhaps not the best example given how often the Muslims from the Middle East get “very aggressive” (or at least are seen as getting “very aggressive”) about even the pettiest of (perceived) slights to Islam. We could have an entirely different discussion thread on that, but given that it would end up about as stupid and troll-ridden as this one if not more so, I’ll just say “noted” and move on.
And you’re still missing the point that even if the etymology were direct and air-tight outside of specific religious vector, it would still mean nothing–except (maybe) to people of that religion or those religions–given that words change from their origin all the time. The etymology of the original Hebrew term is cool to know and all, but pretty much all of people who are against “gay marriage” would still be against it regardless of what it you called it.
After all, the majority of the people against “gay marriage” were still against “civil unions” despite that not being (nearly) equal to “straight marriage” even with the claims of a lot of opponents to “gay marriage” saying that even “civil unions” were too much. Do you honestly think that all of the “political and religious wrestling” would stop if “gay marriage” was called something like “rainbownd” or something else academically specific? At best you’re being…naive, though I suppose that’s still at least better than being outright malicious in this instance.
Either way, thanks for the talk about etymology. As I said, it’s interesting to learn about.
My previous post wasn’t meant to offend, though it seems to have been taken that way. Those emotion/arousal responses have been recorded in research studies documenting the reactions to various erotic stimuli. However the point is that while discrimination against women and minorities is a learned prejudice. There is something instinctual about the prejudice against gay males. To accept them, one must ignore that very powerful instinct and through extensive thinking and reasoning overcome this. This is why getting complete acceptance is so difficult.