Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JoshuaFH]

"Bachmann responded that all Americans should and do have the same rights, which drew a smattering of applause. The student responded: "Well, why can't same-sex couples get married?"  Bachmann responded that gay men and lesbians do in fact have the same rights as everyone else because they can marry members of the opposite sex. So, a gay man could marry a woman. And a lesbian woman could marry a man. Even though they are gay."

My first reaction to that quote was "Wha... what?". Am I reading this right?

I know quite a lot of people that, if I said something that was so obviously smarmy, disingenuous, and dodging the point to them, I would just get punched in the face for being a smartass.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And what if someones religion is ok with gay marriage?

Then clearly they weren't True Christians (TM), for as we all know, Jesus condemned homosexuality when he.....


When he....



......




.....he....


...It's in there somewhere, surely! (Spoiler Alert: It isn't.)

[Truean]

The 'marriage is a religious institution' thing is complete bull. That argument makes the assumption that the arguer's religion decides the definition of religious terms that are shared by many religions and societies.
It is as if some christian group tried to define prayer exclusively as a relationship between one mortal and the god YHWH. (Though I rather suspect some groups do exactly that.)

Let's pretend for a moment it isn't complete bull. It is, but still.

If it is a religious institution, there are many religions and different definitions of marriage, then why does only one religion get to define it and commit religious oppression on all the other religions who don't agree with them?

Surely, they support "religious freedom...?"

[Heron TSG]

I'm glad Michele Bachmann is so batshit crazy that she'll never get elected, but come on now, that's just rules-lawyering asshattery.

[Urist Imiknorris]

...It's in there somewhere, surely! (Spoiler Alert: It isn't.)

I think there's a passage in Leviticus about it, but don't most "True Christians (TM)" basically ignore Leviticus anyway?

I should actually read the Bible sometime. Then I can turn the greatest weapon of "True Christian (TM)" stupidity against it.

[G-Flex]

I think there's a passage in Leviticus about it, but don't most "True Christians (TM)" basically ignore Leviticus anyway?

But he was talking about Jesus condemning homosexuality, not the Bible in general.

And even then, you have to contend with translation and cultural issues that nobody can really seem to wrap their heads around.

[Truean]

I'm glad Michele Bachmann is so batshit crazy that she'll never get elected, but come on now, that's just rules-lawyering asshattery.

The irony is if there is a God, he won't let her be elected. Unless of course, he's really pissed at everyone....

O shit, it is 2012 huh...?

[Glowcat]

Surely, they support "religious freedom...?"

But I thought religious freedom meant the freedom to follow Christianity?! (always the speaker's particular brand)

That people actually think such things almost drives me to alcoholism. Damn humanity, turnin' me into a cynic. I want my innocence back.

[EveryZig]

The 'marriage is a religious institution' thing is complete bull. That argument makes the assumption that the arguer's religion decides the definition of religious terms that are shared by many religions and societies.
It is as if some christian group tried to define prayer exclusively as a relationship between one mortal and the god YHWH. (Though I rather suspect some groups do exactly that.)

[...] If it is a religious institution, there are many religions and different definitions of marriage, then why does only one religion get to define it and commit religious oppression on all the other religions who don't agree with them? [...]

Um... That is the exact same argument I was making 

I think there's a passage in Leviticus about it, but don't most "True Christians (TM)" basically ignore Leviticus anyway?

But he was talking about Jesus condemning homosexuality, not the Bible in general.

And even then, you have to contend with translation and cultural issues that nobody can really seem to wrap their heads around.

Apart from the old testament, I think there was also something about Paul hating homosexuals. Paul apparently hated a great many things, such as the concept of women teaching men.

[G-Flex]

Even in the case of Paul, sometimes it's damn near impossible to figure out what the passage originally meant.

[scriver]

Paul apparently hated a great many things

Including Christians, before he saw the light, which is kind of amusing.

[Realmfighter]

I have to laugh every time someone says that the bible is gods definitive word. There are so many damned interpretations of the thing flying around, plus the near infinite amount of interpretations possible. How do you know that yours, out of the countless versions is right?

Or have you never asked yourself that question? And if you haven't by now, will you ever?

[ECrownofFire]

...It's in there somewhere, surely! (Spoiler Alert: It isn't.)

I think there's a passage in Leviticus about it, but don't most "True Christians (TM)" basically ignore Leviticus anyway?

I should actually read the Bible sometime. Then I can turn the greatest weapon of "True Christian (TM)" stupidity against it.

Hilariously enough, the word condemning homosexuality (some variation of "abomination") is the same word condemning lobster (and other crustaceans). Leviticus 11:10 if you're really curious about it.

So now we know. Lobster, crab, and shrimp are as bad as gay people

[Bauglir]

So... extremely delicious, and excellent in soup?

[Rose]

Unhealthy in biblical times?