Gay Marriage Now Legal Across The US
Gay Marriage Now Legal Across the US
Is there a bigger example of not allowing freedom of speech than by using your child -- something that should be pure, and surrounded with love -- as a poster for your own hate, and placing in them such vile things, denying them the freedom for (potentially) a lifetime?
[+]
Ramyrez said: »
Is there a bigger example of not allowing freedom of speech than by using your child -- something that should be pure, and surrounded with love -- as a poster for your own hate?
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Okay, so apparently you don't understand why Christian churches don't comply with the Old Testament still.
All of them were reiterated in the New Testament to one extent or the other. And it doesn't invalidate everything from the Old Testament, mostly just the Mosaic Law.
I don't remember Jesus saying anything about homosexuality.
The people who rely on the Bible alone to make that judgment certainly have to stretch, so I'll give you that.
And so we're back to square one. Who's flavor of Christianity is right? The liberal Unitarians? The fire and brimstone Baptists? That bum claiming to have had a chat with Jesus? The stoner who thinks Jesus smoked a bowl? The scholars? The extremists?
Take it on faith, I 'spose.
Plural marriage, you mean like the Saudi Kings?
Sorry about that, Rooks. Should have known better.
For those who may have missed it, it was an offensive image from Westboro Baptist describing their....particular views on homosexuality.
I assume that my description doesn't break the rules? If so, I apologize. I just wanted the context of what I was trying to say stay close to the original while still remaining acceptable.
For those who may have missed it, it was an offensive image from Westboro Baptist describing their....particular views on homosexuality.
I assume that my description doesn't break the rules? If so, I apologize. I just wanted the context of what I was trying to say stay close to the original while still remaining acceptable.
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Plural marriage, you mean like the Saudi Kings?
One womans hard enough, they can keep the 60+ wives bit.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.
There is a history of same-sex unions/marriage even within the Catholic church, merely done with a "wink and a nod".
Same sex marriage/unions have been a thing throughout many cultures throughout the years.
I don't see how this ruling opens the door for any other kind of marriage law. A case for polygamy could have been made long before today. No one seems to really want to though.
Ramyrez said: »
Is there a bigger example of not allowing freedom of speech than by using your child -- something that should be pure, and surrounded with love -- as a poster for your own hate, and placing in them such vile things, denying them the freedom for (potentially) a lifetime?
Let's not down free speech for everyone because of some idiots, kthx.
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
It's common in several parts of the world, and now that a major hurdle has been jumped in the marriage monopoly, it's going to be an issue. Don't believe me if you don't want to, I don't care.
[+]
Bahamut.Seekerstar said: »
Sorry about that, Rooks. Should have known better.
For those who may have missed it, it was an offensive image from Westboro Baptist describing their....particular views on homosexuality.
I assume that my description doesn't break the rules? If so, I apologize. I just wanted the context of what I was trying to say stay close to the original while still remaining acceptable.
For those who may have missed it, it was an offensive image from Westboro Baptist describing their....particular views on homosexuality.
I assume that my description doesn't break the rules? If so, I apologize. I just wanted the context of what I was trying to say stay close to the original while still remaining acceptable.
It's fine. It's the specific language on the image that's in violation, that's all.
I actually expected today to be kind of a shitshow, which is why I'm in these threads so much, but I have to say, I'm very pleased at how people are basically acting civilly even when they disagree. Kudos, guys, only takes a once in a lifetime, landmark event to get some of the barest cooperation and debate in good faith.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Let's not down free speech for everyone because of some idiots, kthx.
I'm not downing free speech for anyone.
I'm saying taking a child who has had zero time to form his own opinions or gain information about world views that aren't on the back of his Cheerios box and turning him into a walking billboard for hate is the epitome of denying him free speech.
Bahamut.Seekerstar said: »
Sorry about that, Rooks. Should have known better.
For those who may have missed it, it was an offensive image from Westboro Baptist describing their....particular views on homosexuality.
I assume that my description doesn't break the rules? If so, I apologize. I just wanted the context of what I was trying to say stay close to the original while still remaining acceptable.
For those who may have missed it, it was an offensive image from Westboro Baptist describing their....particular views on homosexuality.
I assume that my description doesn't break the rules? If so, I apologize. I just wanted the context of what I was trying to say stay close to the original while still remaining acceptable.
[Mod edit: I jumped the gun on that. Sorry, Pleebo :( --Rooks]
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
72 virgins for those who take their lives in the name of their god. Having a lot of wives is common in the Middle East, virgin or not.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
It's common in several parts of the world, and now that a major hurdle has been jumped in the marriage monopoly, it's going to be an issue. Don't believe me if you don't want to, I don't care.
I think plural marriages tend to go very poorly for the women involved, and I'm sure one woman having many husbands/wives would go awry.
Though I can say that, had my life gone differently, I'd have been willing to be in some rich woman's harem...
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Is there a bigger example of not allowing freedom of speech than by using your child -- something that should be pure, and surrounded with love -- as a poster for your own hate, and placing in them such vile things, denying them the freedom for (potentially) a lifetime?
Let's not down free speech for everyone because of some idiots, kthx.
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
It's common in several parts of the world, and now that a major hurdle has been jumped in the marriage monopoly, it's going to be an issue. Don't believe me if you don't want to, I don't care.
[+]
Wait until all these folks getting married discover gay divorce is still illegal.
[+]
Ragnarok.Yatenkou said: »
72 virgins for those who take their lives in the name of their god. Having a lot of wives is common in the Middle East, virgin or not.
I've got my hands full disappointing one woman, where do these people find the time?
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
I don't see how this ruling opens the door for any other kind of marriage law. A case for polygamy could have been made long before today. No one seems to really want to though.
Rooks said: »
Ragnarok.Yatenkou said: »
72 virgins for those who take their lives in the name of their god. Having a lot of wives is common in the Middle East, virgin or not.
I've got my hands full disappointing one woman, where do these people find the time?
Well at that point they do have all eternity...
[+]
Rooks said: »
Ragnarok.Yatenkou said: »
72 virgins for those who take their lives in the name of their god. Having a lot of wives is common in the Middle East, virgin or not.
I've got my hands full disappointing one woman, where do these people find the time?
bada-ching!
Yeah, I can definitely see polygamy coming back in the US. Gotta love conspiracy theorists.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
I don't see how this ruling opens the door for any other kind of marriage law. A case for polygamy could have been made long before today. No one seems to really want to though.
No you didn't. But anyway, I thought the whole point of the gay marriage debate was that people should be able to marry whoever they love? What if that's more than one person, should the bigots be preventing them their equal and due rights to marry whoever they please?
Bahamut.Omael said: »
Wait until all these folks getting married discover gay divorce is still illegal.
Sorry, but you owe me a keyboard.
[+]
Fenrir.Camiie said: »
Rooks said: »
Ragnarok.Yatenkou said: »
72 virgins for those who take their lives in the name of their god. Having a lot of wives is common in the Middle East, virgin or not.
I've got my hands full disappointing one woman, where do these people find the time?
Well at that point they do have all eternity...
It takes about 10000 years to master the female orgasm, give or a take a few millenia.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
What if that's more than one person, should the bigots be preventing them their equal and due rights to marry whoever they please?
I have no desire to stand in the way of plural relationships if people consider it a thing.
As long as they pay an additional premium for each wife/husband on their healthcare plan, and we work out a good tax code to avoid it being abused for that purpose...do it up.
[+]
Ramyrez said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Let's not down free speech for everyone because of some idiots, kthx.
I'm not downing free speech for anyone.
I'm saying taking a child who has had zero time to form his own opinions or gain information about world views that aren't on the back of his Cheerios box and turning him into a walking billboard for hate is the epitome of denying him free speech.
I disagree very strongly with that organization and their views...and personally think that using a child (or anyone who isn't capable or informed enough to make independent decisions) is disgusting.
It's not illegal, though, and it's been tested enough in the courts that they don't call it abuse, either. It's protected speech, even if I don't like it.
They're just too hypocritical to realize that they want to deny others the same freedoms that allow them to speak as they do.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Bahamut.Seekerstar said: »
Sorry about that, Rooks. Should have known better.
For those who may have missed it, it was an offensive image from Westboro Baptist describing their....particular views on homosexuality.
I assume that my description doesn't break the rules? If so, I apologize. I just wanted the context of what I was trying to say stay close to the original while still remaining acceptable.
For those who may have missed it, it was an offensive image from Westboro Baptist describing their....particular views on homosexuality.
I assume that my description doesn't break the rules? If so, I apologize. I just wanted the context of what I was trying to say stay close to the original while still remaining acceptable.
[Mod edit: I jumped the gun on that. Sorry, Pleebo :( --Rooks]
LOL
[+]
[Mod edit: Personal attacks are still not allowed, yo. --Rooks]
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Yeah, I can definitely see polygamy coming back in the US. Gotta love conspiracy theorists.
2 hours old!
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.