Four women go topless at Vatican to protest Church's position on g*y marriage

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#51 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="nintendoman562"] This has nothing to do with the US and the first amendment. This has to do with the Vatican and allowing gay marriage for Catholic Christians. nintendoman562
Not since the Vatican is calling for outlawing Gay Marriage for everyone and not just Catholics

Evidence?

Evidence

"The small demonstration coincided with a march in Paris that is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of people to protest the French president's plan to legalize gay marriage and let gay couples adopt children. French Catholic bishops and other religious leaders have strongly opposed the proposal, and the Vatican has backed them."

Avatar image for Bane_09
Bane_09

3394

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 Bane_09
Member since 2010 • 3394 Posts

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]Gays are the new Civil Rights movement. Despite it being against all their teachings, the Religious Right seems to always find a group of people, and justification to hateNibroc420

I think Jesus would be truly ashamed of what some Christians try to do in his name

If he could exist long enough to.

indeed

Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#53 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts
[QUOTE="nintendoman562"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="nintendoman562"] They can do that but they can't call themselves a Christian for doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I don't see how I fell into the fallacy? You can't just simply tweak the religion to your own needs. You either follow it or you don't.

Incorrect. It seems you're unable to comprehend that there are different groups within the larger religion of "Christianity". Simply because you chose the bigoted one, doesn't mean they all hate gays or blacks, or whatever else you believe God said.
Avatar image for BluRayHiDef
BluRayHiDef

10839

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#54 BluRayHiDef
Member since 2009 • 10839 Posts

This is absolutely stupid. To protest against a religious institution for holding a position which it's required to hold according to the religion it represents is absurd. From the Catholic standpoint, homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, so the Catholic Church's position on it is unnegotiable; it's like protesting against Muslims for declaring pork as haram. Stupid. Furthermore, how exactly does displaying boobage help their cause? This was just a stupid excuse to engage in stupid behavior.

Avatar image for nintendoman562
nintendoman562

5593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 nintendoman562
Member since 2007 • 5593 Posts
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="nintendoman562"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I don't see how I fell into the fallacy? You can't just simply tweak the religion to your own needs. You either follow it or you don't.

Incorrect. It seems you're unable to comprehend that there are different groups within the larger religion of "Christianity". Simply because you chose the bigoted one, doesn't mean they all hate gays or blacks, or whatever else you believe God said.

Those subgroups go directly against the teachings of the Bible and as such cannot call themselves Christians, no matter what the say. Ultimately, the Vatican is solely responsible for the Catholic denomination and has no bearing on those other subgroups.
Avatar image for MrPraline
MrPraline

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#56 MrPraline
Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts
Wonder if that works in bars, too. Brb being an egregious homophobe.
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#57 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts

This is absolutely stupid. To protest against a religious institution for holding a position which it's required to hold according to the religion it represents is absurd. From the Catholic standpoint, homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, so the Catholic Church's position on it is unnegotiable; it's like protesting against Muslims for declaring pork as haram. Stupid. Furthermore, how exactly does displaying boobage help their cause? This was just a stupid excuse to engage in stupid behavior.

BluRayHiDef
It's an ancient, bigoted stance. We cannot allow prejudice to be grandfathered into acceptance.
Avatar image for BluRayHiDef
BluRayHiDef

10839

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#58 BluRayHiDef
Member since 2009 • 10839 Posts

[QUOTE="nintendoman562"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_ScotsmanNibroc420
I don't see how I fell into the fallacy? You can't just simply tweak the religion to your own needs. You either follow it or you don't.

Incorrect. It seems you're unable to comprehend that there are different groups within the larger religion of "Christianity". Simply because you chose the bigoted one, doesn't mean they all hate gays or blacks, or whatever else you believe God said.

Their is no compromising in religion; either an adherant follow it absolutely or they don't. There's no in-between. One cannot negotiate with God on His terms.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#59 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts

This is absolutely stupid. To protest against a religious institution for holding a position which it's required to hold according to the religion it represents is absurd. From the Catholic standpoint, homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, so the Catholic Church's position on it is unnegotiable; it's like protesting against Muslims for declaring pork as haram. Stupid. Furthermore, how exactly does displaying boobage help their cause? This was just a stupid excuse to engage in stupid behavior.

BluRayHiDef
Catholics changed their mind on Evolution.
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#60 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="nintendoman562"]I don't see how I fell into the fallacy? You can't just simply tweak the religion to your own needs. You either follow it or you don't.nintendoman562
Incorrect. It seems you're unable to comprehend that there are different groups within the larger religion of "Christianity". Simply because you chose the bigoted one, doesn't mean they all hate gays or blacks, or whatever else you believe God said.

Those subgroups go directly against the teachings of the Bible and as such cannot call themselves Christians, no matter what the say. Ultimately, the Vatican is solely responsible for the Catholic denomination and has no bearing on those other subgroups.

The Bible has been edited by numerous churches over a hundred times throughout the past 2000 years. Even if God wrote the original himself, it's been edited to the point where no-one gives a ****. It tells you to stone children to death, God teaches to rape and burn entire cities, Really good moral compass, lets all follow that :roll: Or we could just be intelligent human beings who respect each-other because we're mammals, and naturally social creatures as a result of that.
Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

This is a stupid protest... gay marriage is against the religion. Of course it wouldn't be allowed. You can't be a practicing Christian and gay at the same time.

nintendoman562

Jesus Christ never said anything against being gay.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#62 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="nintendoman562"]I don't see how I fell into the fallacy? You can't just simply tweak the religion to your own needs. You either follow it or you don't.BluRayHiDef

Incorrect. It seems you're unable to comprehend that there are different groups within the larger religion of "Christianity". Simply because you chose the bigoted one, doesn't mean they all hate gays or blacks, or whatever else you believe God said.

Their is no compromising in religion; either an adherant follow it absolutely or they don't. There's no in-between. One cannot negotiate with God on His terms.

Catholics do
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#63 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

This is absolutely stupid. To protest against a religious institution for holding a position which it's required to hold according to the religion it represents is absurd. From the Catholic standpoint, homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, so the Catholic Church's position on it is unnegotiable; it's like protesting against Muslims for declaring pork as haram. Stupid. Furthermore, how exactly does displaying boobage help their cause? This was just a stupid excuse to engage in stupid behavior.

BluRayHiDef
Pretty sure diddling little kids is unnegotiable with the teachings of the Bible and yet the Catholic church recently was under fire yet again for trying to cover up acts of pedophilia. Also the Pope wears two types of fabric at once which is forbidden (iirc) in the same book that forbids homosexuality.
Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="nintendoman562"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

They are allowed. Just because something is written in the Bible doesn't mean somebody can't do it.

Ace6301
The question isn't whether they are capable of doing it. The question is if they should be doing it. Reading comprehension ftw.

To be fair according to the Bible Christians shouldn't be wearing two types of fabric at the same time. Also Jesus didn't say a damn thing about gay marriage. So either you can accept all the crazy weird stuff the OT says along side the whole being anti-gay or you can add gay marriage to the list of things everyone ignores from the bible.

Jesus however was a Jew, which means that the most likely had jewsih views, which means that no gay marriage. Gay marriage is not suppose to happen in churches, you can't be a christian and gay its disrespectful, but there is nothing that says that gas can't still believe in god, so why try so hard to go into something you are not welcome in? Also what does going shirtless accomplish?
Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="nintendoman562"] They can do that but they can't call themselves a Christian for doing so.nintendoman562
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I don't see how I fell into the fallacy? You can't just simply tweak the religion to your own needs. You either follow it or you don't.

So then you advocate stoning unruly children to death?

Avatar image for MrPraline
MrPraline

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#66 MrPraline
Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="nintendoman562"]I don't see how I fell into the fallacy? You can't just simply tweak the religion to your own needs. You either follow it or you don't.BluRayHiDef

Incorrect. It seems you're unable to comprehend that there are different groups within the larger religion of "Christianity". Simply because you chose the bigoted one, doesn't mean they all hate gays or blacks, or whatever else you believe God said.

Their is no compromising in religion; either an adherant follow it absolutely or they don't. There's no in-between. One cannot negotiate with God on His terms.

The Vatican changes their mind a lot. See evolution. Think they are starting to loosen up on birth control too. They understand time is moving on and to survive they have to adapt. They do. Would not be surprised if this whole gay debate is gone in a 100 years.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#67 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="nintendoman562"] The question isn't whether they are capable of doing it. The question is if they should be doing it. Reading comprehension ftw.

To be fair according to the Bible Christians shouldn't be wearing two types of fabric at the same time. Also Jesus didn't say a damn thing about gay marriage. So either you can accept all the crazy weird stuff the OT says along side the whole being anti-gay or you can add gay marriage to the list of things everyone ignores from the bible.

Jesus however was a Jew, which means that the most likely had jewsih views, which means that no gay marriage. Gay marriage is not suppose to happen in churches, you can't be a christian and gay its disrespectful, but there is nothing that says that gas can't still believe in god, so why try so hard to go into something you are not welcome in? Also what does going shirtless accomplish?

Jesus did quite a few things that directly violated Jewish views. Also taking things that Jesus didn't say as laws is pretty stupid.
Avatar image for Kamekazi_69
Kamekazi_69

4704

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 Kamekazi_69
Member since 2006 • 4704 Posts

Showing your boobs? "In gays we trust"? what a stupid ass way to protest. where's the front pictures?

Honestly, don't let people tell you what God thinks of them, God knows them better then they know him. Just follow your heart, be a good person, love one another.

God Bless

Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] To be fair according to the Bible Christians shouldn't be wearing two types of fabric at the same time. Also Jesus didn't say a damn thing about gay marriage. So either you can accept all the crazy weird stuff the OT says along side the whole being anti-gay or you can add gay marriage to the list of things everyone ignores from the bible.

Jesus however was a Jew, which means that the most likely had jewsih views, which means that no gay marriage. Gay marriage is not suppose to happen in churches, you can't be a christian and gay its disrespectful, but there is nothing that says that gas can't still believe in god, so why try so hard to go into something you are not welcome in? Also what does going shirtless accomplish?

Jesus did quite a few things that directly violated Jewish views. Also taking things that Jesus didn't say as laws is pretty stupid.

Doesn't matter, religion or not, marriage never involved two of the same sex, we had other things for that which the media shadowed so we can have fights like this so that people can stay in power. There is no actual meaning in people who are not wanted trying to break into something that does not allow them. if this was race as a person, yes, this would make more sense, but this is different.
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#70 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts

Doesn't matter, religion or not, marriage never involved two of the same sex, FreddyJeffery

Someone needs a history lesson.

Come back when you've graduated highschool.

Avatar image for Kamekazi_69
Kamekazi_69

4704

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71 Kamekazi_69
Member since 2006 • 4704 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] Jesus however was a Jew, which means that the most likely had jewsih views, which means that no gay marriage. Gay marriage is not suppose to happen in churches, you can't be a christian and gay its disrespectful, but there is nothing that says that gas can't still believe in god, so why try so hard to go into something you are not welcome in? Also what does going shirtless accomplish?FreddyJeffery
Jesus did quite a few things that directly violated Jewish views. Also taking things that Jesus didn't say as laws is pretty stupid.

Doesn't matter, religion or not, marriage never involved two of the same sex, we had other things for that which the media shadowed so we can have fights like this so that people can stay in power. There is no actual meaning in people who are not wanted trying to break into something that does not allow them. if this was race as a person, yes, this would make more sense, but this is different.

That's not necessarily true Freddy.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#72 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] Jesus however was a Jew, which means that the most likely had jewsih views, which means that no gay marriage. Gay marriage is not suppose to happen in churches, you can't be a christian and gay its disrespectful, but there is nothing that says that gas can't still believe in god, so why try so hard to go into something you are not welcome in? Also what does going shirtless accomplish?

Jesus did quite a few things that directly violated Jewish views. Also taking things that Jesus didn't say as laws is pretty stupid.

Doesn't matter, religion or not, marriage never involved two of the same sex, we had other things for that which the media shadowed so we can have fights like this so that people can stay in power. There is no actual meaning in people who are not wanted trying to break into something that does not allow them. if this was race as a person, yes, this would make more sense, but this is different.

Actually that's wrong. Same sex marriage existed in Rome, China and in some Native American tribes.
Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts

[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"]Doesn't matter, religion or not, marriage never involved two of the same sex, Nibroc420

Someone needs a history lesson.

Come back when you've graduated highschool.

So you have nothing to show me but insults?
Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#74 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts
marriage never involved two of the same sexFreddyJeffery
Try Again. Same Sex Marriage was common enough in Western Culture until Christianity came rolling along.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#75 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"]Doesn't matter, religion or not, marriage never involved two of the same sex, FreddyJeffery

Someone needs a history lesson.

Come back when you've graduated highschool.

So you have nothing to show me but insults?

You just got proved wrong by about six posts in a row junior. Game Over.
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#76 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"]Doesn't matter, religion or not, marriage never involved two of the same sex, FreddyJeffery

Someone needs a history lesson.

Come back when you've graduated highschool.

So you have nothing to show me but insults?

Why should i show you anything? You made a claim, you didn't provide any evidence to support the claim. I know you cannot provide evidence, because I've gone to school instead of church, so I've learned enough history to know you're talking out your a**.
Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Someone needs a history lesson.

Come back when you've graduated highschool.

Nuck81

So you have nothing to show me but insults?

You just got proved wrong by about six posts in a row junior. Game Over.

Something tells me he'll ignore every single post.

Avatar image for Kats_RK
Kats_RK

2080

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#78 Kats_RK
Member since 2010 • 2080 Posts

I like those women protesting topless they should do it more often.

Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Jesus did quite a few things that directly violated Jewish views. Also taking things that Jesus didn't say as laws is pretty stupid.

Doesn't matter, religion or not, marriage never involved two of the same sex, we had other things for that which the media shadowed so we can have fights like this so that people can stay in power. There is no actual meaning in people who are not wanted trying to break into something that does not allow them. if this was race as a person, yes, this would make more sense, but this is different.

Actually that's wrong. Same sex marriage existed in Rome, China and in some Native American tribes.

The word was not meant for gays, it just became the only word and it's causing massive controversy. BTW rome happened religion already grabbed that word. So in both cases it's just there to make people yell at eachother.
Avatar image for MrPraline
MrPraline

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#80 MrPraline
Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts
[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] Doesn't matter, religion or not, marriage never involved two of the same sex, we had other things for that which the media shadowed so we can have fights like this so that people can stay in power. There is no actual meaning in people who are not wanted trying to break into something that does not allow them. if this was race as a person, yes, this would make more sense, but this is different.

Actually that's wrong. Same sex marriage existed in Rome, China and in some Native American tribes.

The word was not meant for gays, it just became the only word and it's causing massive controversy. BTW rome happened religion already grabbed that word. So in both cases it's just there to make people yell at eachother.

rofl, FIRST DIBS ON THE WORD MARRIAGE, GUYS
Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"]marriage never involved two of the same sexNuck81
Try Again. Same Sex Marriage was common enough in Western Culture until Christianity came rolling along.

Again, the word was not meant for them and was consumed for the future of endless cycles of saying who is wrong and right. Judaism picked up the marriage afterward before gay marriage was "common" it's not supposed to happen period and you are all falling for it. Which is why religion bigots and others can't agree.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#82 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] So you have nothing to show me but insults?worlock77

You just got proved wrong by about six posts in a row junior. Game Over.

Something tells me he'll ignore every single post.

You called it
Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Actually that's wrong. Same sex marriage existed in Rome, China and in some Native American tribes.

The word was not meant for gays, it just became the only word and it's causing massive controversy. BTW rome happened religion already grabbed that word. So in both cases it's just there to make people yell at eachother.

rofl, FIRST DIBS ON THE WORD MARRIAGE, GUYS

Hey that's how it works. Otherwise why would it be as such a big issue the last few centuries?
Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] You just got proved wrong by about six posts in a row junior. Game Over.Nuck81

Something tells me he'll ignore every single post.

You called it

Lol cant even give me time to look and respond? Doesn't change the fact that there's obviously an issue or there wouldn't be so much push against gay unions now would there? it's an issue now, heck it may have been the only reason Romney was close to Obama in the popular vote despite being a complete failure imo.
Avatar image for MrPraline
MrPraline

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#85 MrPraline
Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts
[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] The word was not meant for gays, it just became the only word and it's causing massive controversy. BTW rome happened religion already grabbed that word. So in both cases it's just there to make people yell at eachother.

rofl, FIRST DIBS ON THE WORD MARRIAGE, GUYS

Hey that's how it works. Otherwise why would it be as such a big issue the last few centuries?

Because religious people want to have a monopoly on the definition. To be able to decide how it's used. They do not.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#86 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts
[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"]marriage never involved two of the same sexFreddyJeffery
Try Again. Same Sex Marriage was common enough in Western Culture until Christianity came rolling along.

Again, the word was not meant for them and was consumed for the future of endless cycles of saying who is wrong and right. Judaism picked up the marriage afterward before gay marriage was "common" it's not supposed to happen period and you are all falling for it. Which is why religion bigots and others can't agree.

So now your entire argument is anchored on the semantics over the word "gay" I don't even.....
Avatar image for MrPraline
MrPraline

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#87 MrPraline
Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts
[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Something tells me he'll ignore every single post.

FreddyJeffery
You called it

Lol cant even give me time to look and respond? Doesn't change the fact that there's obviously an issue or there wouldn't be so much push against gay unions now would there? it's an issue now, heck it may have been the only reason Romney was close to Obama in the popular vote despite being a complete failure imo.

Romney was only close because Barry has been a disaster of the highest order. That's not a compliment for Mitt. Hell, the fact he lost that war shows how terrible of a candidate Romney was.
Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] rofl, FIRST DIBS ON THE WORD MARRIAGE, GUYS

Hey that's how it works. Otherwise why would it be as such a big issue the last few centuries?

Because religious people want to have a monopoly on the definition. To be able to decide how it's used. They do not.

However it was not made for gays, it was made for male and female fromthe start, which is why Religion has a vast majority of control over it since they have the same views. Like i said, we need some kind of balancer.
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#89 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts
[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] The word was not meant for gays, it just became the only word and it's causing massive controversy. BTW rome happened religion already grabbed that word. So in both cases it's just there to make people yell at eachother.

rofl, FIRST DIBS ON THE WORD MARRIAGE, GUYS

Hey that's how it works. Otherwise why would it be as such a big issue the last few centuries?

For the same reason slavery was an issue. Bigots will be bigots.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#90 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] Doesn't matter, religion or not, marriage never involved two of the same sex, we had other things for that which the media shadowed so we can have fights like this so that people can stay in power. There is no actual meaning in people who are not wanted trying to break into something that does not allow them. if this was race as a person, yes, this would make more sense, but this is different.

Actually that's wrong. Same sex marriage existed in Rome, China and in some Native American tribes.

The word was not meant for gays, it just became the only word and it's causing massive controversy. BTW rome happened religion already grabbed that word. So in both cases it's just there to make people yell at eachother.

"Doesn't matter, religion or not" Sorry your own words defeat your argument.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#91 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts
[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Something tells me he'll ignore every single post.

FreddyJeffery
You called it

Lol cant even give me time to look and respond? Doesn't change the fact that there's obviously an issue or there wouldn't be so much push against gay unions now would there? it's an issue now, heck it may have been the only reason Romney was close to Obama in the popular vote despite being a complete failure imo.

Equal Rights for Blacks was a big issue 50 years ago. Most of the arguments against equal rights were based on religious and biblical reasons. So are you a racist as well as a homophobe?
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#92 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts
[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] However it was not made for gays, it was made for male and female fromthe start, which is why Religion has a vast majority of control over it since they have the same views.

Again, do some homework.
Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#93 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] You called it

Lol cant even give me time to look and respond? Doesn't change the fact that there's obviously an issue or there wouldn't be so much push against gay unions now would there? it's an issue now, heck it may have been the only reason Romney was close to Obama in the popular vote despite being a complete failure imo.

Romney was only close because Barry has been a disaster of the highest order. That's not a compliment for Mitt. Hell, the fact he lost that war shows how terrible of a candidate Romney was.

A lot of people turned to romney just because obama supported GM, and there were forums with thousands around the internet stating that they were changing their votes. Welcome to America. Also Barry?
Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#94 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts
[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] Hey that's how it works. Otherwise why would it be as such a big issue the last few centuries?

Because religious people want to have a monopoly on the definition. To be able to decide how it's used. They do not.

However it was not made for gays, it was made for male and female fromthe start, which is why Religion has a vast majority of control over it since they have the same views. Like i said, we need some kind of balancer.

No Religion has such a control over marriage because most humans are religious
Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] However it was not made for gays, it was made for male and female fromthe start, which is why Religion has a vast majority of control over it since they have the same views.

Again, do some homework.

The origins of the word do not involve gay people, it has nothing to do with how LONG ago they may have had the concept of gay marriage, you need to do research, it's the reason why people usually don't accept gay marriage, it was not meant for it at the start, and as long as that fact is presented there will be endless arguing over who is right.
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#96 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts
[QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"] However it was not made for gays, it was made for male and female fromthe start, which is why Religion has a vast majority of control over it since they have the same views.

Again, do some homework.

The origins of the word do not involve gay people, it has nothing to do with how LONG ago they may have had the concept of gay marriage, you need to do research, it's the reason why people usually don't accept gay marriage, it was not meant for it at the start, and as long as that fact is presented there will be endless arguing over who is right.

Show me some hard evidence that the origin of marriage was religious and that it was only between a man and a woman.
Avatar image for 00-Riddick-00
00-Riddick-00

18884

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#97 00-Riddick-00
Member since 2009 • 18884 Posts
[QUOTE="nintendoman562"]

This is a stupid protest... gay marriage is against the religion. Of course it wouldn't be allowed. You can't be a practicing Christian and gay at the same time.

Nibroc420
Christians teach to love one another, to be accepting, and to practice forgiveness. Usually when it comes to anything that isn't their religion, they hate it, it's ungodly, and they end up showing their true sides, as bigots.

Just because I accept someone does not mean I have to accept their actions.
Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#98 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] rofl, FIRST DIBS ON THE WORD MARRIAGE, GUYS

Hey that's how it works. Otherwise why would it be as such a big issue the last few centuries?

For the same reason slavery was an issue. Bigots will be bigots.

not all people who disagree are bigots, I will admit while the argument against gay marrige is endless nothing, gay marriage in religion makes sense, and not all of those who agree are not bigots.
Avatar image for FreddyJeffery
FreddyJeffery

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99 FreddyJeffery
Member since 2013 • 164 Posts
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="FreddyJeffery"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Again, do some homework.

The origins of the word do not involve gay people, it has nothing to do with how LONG ago they may have had the concept of gay marriage, you need to do research, it's the reason why people usually don't accept gay marriage, it was not meant for it at the start, and as long as that fact is presented there will be endless arguing over who is right.

Show me some hard evidence that the origin of marriage was religious and that it was only between a man and a woman.

i didn't say the original origin was religioun I said it was between man and woman. This is not a religious argument.
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#100 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="nintendoman562"]

This is a stupid protest... gay marriage is against the religion. Of course it wouldn't be allowed. You can't be a practicing Christian and gay at the same time.

00-Riddick-00
Christians teach to love one another, to be accepting, and to practice forgiveness. Usually when it comes to anything that isn't their religion, they hate it, it's ungodly, and they end up showing their true sides, as bigots.

Just because I accept someone does not mean I have to accept their actions.

Yes it does, it's a part of acceptance.